The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

David Taylor: Perhaps that answer reflects the £350 million pension board deficit in the priests' retirement fund and the consequent need to raise the retirement age to 68. Can my hon. Friend say whether, taking into account deaths and future retirements, the overall trend is for a falling number of stipendiary priests and whether that is balanced out by an increase in the number of non-stipendiaries?

Stuart Bell: As my hon. Friend will know, as with every other final salary pension scheme the cost of the clergy pension scheme has increased significantly over the past decade because of increased life expectancy, lower investment returns and increased regulation. The Church is committed, however, to ensuring that its clergy receive an adequate income in retirement.
	On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it is a fact that deaths and retirements mean that the overall number of stipendiary priests has been falling. However, I remind the House of two things: first, the Church is immensely well served by thousands of non-stipendiary clergy; and secondly, it is doing some very good work with vocation events to help people, especially younger people, to explore their calling.

Anne McIntosh: Taking that with the hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), it appears that more parishes are going to be covered by the same stipendiary priests. I know that the Second Church Estates Commissioner has visited Teesdale, where I was brought up, and parishes in North Yorkshire are very similar. Parish priests are being extremely hard pressed. What can he do to make their lives a little easier in getting around to administer to parishes?

Ann Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend for the information regarding stipendiary and non-stipendiary priests. Does he have a precise figure for how many non-stipendiary priests there are in the Church of England-and may I pay tribute to them? My second late husband, John Hammersley, spent his last four years of working as a Church of England vicar in the Oxford diocese training and preparing for ordination non-stipendiary priests and he was terribly impressed by their abilities.

The hon. Member for South-West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Graham Allen: The monopoly of political power between the Government and the media threatens not only this place but the grass roots of our politics. Many of us of all parties know the decline in the membership and activity of local parties. Will the hon. Gentleman make it his aim to extend the ability of the grass roots of our parties to thrive, not least by raising the amount that Members of Parliament can spend on their campaigns locally rather than at national level?

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will know that cathedrals, including Lichfield cathedral, have made several applications to people at, for example, the Heritage Lottery Fund, and have often been successful, but when they are unsuccessful it has cost the cathedrals tens of thousands of pounds. Large applications have to be made and decided upon down in London. Surely, there is an argument for the Commissioners, who are based in London, to have a relationship with the Heritage Lottery Fund, so that they can advise cathedrals around the country.

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

Austin Mitchell: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission, which took evidence on 20 October on the National Audit Office's strategy for 2010-11 to 2012-13. The NAO proposed that its net resource requirement, which was £79.3 million in 2009-10, should remain at that figure for 2010-11, and the commission agreed. The NAO is also committed to cost reductions that will reduce corporate costs by 5 per cent. per year, while streamlined processes and better use of staff resources will reduce the cost of front-line audit and assurance work by 2 per cent.

Austin Mitchell: The NAO reports regularly to the commission on how it proposes to make savings, and we work on a ratio of £10 in Government spending saved for every £1 spent. So far it has been agreed that cost savings will be achieved by reducing expenditure on non-essential, back-office functions, using in-house resources rather than consultants wherever possible, and introducing a standard analytical framework for value-for-money work to use staff resources better. The NAO intends to ensure that quality is maintained through its internal and external quality control processes. We, at the commission, will be keeping a close eye on that.

The hon. Member for South-West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Vera Baird: I suppose precedent would be a help because there never has been such behaviour by the Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the House of Lords said about the decision. First, it made it clear that the director of the SFO, not any member of the Government, made the decision. It was also clearly stated that:
	"It may indeed be doubted whether a responsible decision-maker could, on the facts before the Director, have decided otherwise".

Hugh Bayley: When I introduced my draft International Bribery and Corruption Bill in February 1998, it was opposed by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who sits on the Conservative Front Bench today, and who described it as "fundamentally naïve". Has my hon. and learned Friend discussed the Bribery Bill with the Opposition Law Officers and will they now support it?

Vera Baird: I do not think there is anything fundamentally naïve about this Bill. At first sight, it looks as if the Bill is going to hit the spot and will be much more modern, clearer and less fragmented than what applies currently. Whether the Opposition will support it, I do not know. It will be introduced in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Bach, and when it comes here it will be dealt with by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), who I have no doubt at all will have conversations with the Opposition. May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who has had a long-term interest in this issue and has focused primarily on ensuring that bribery and corruption go out of overseas development funding? I hope that he will be pleased with the Bill when it comes through.

Henry Bellingham: I am pleased to hear that, but does the Solicitor-General share my view that burglaries are invariably incredibly traumatic, and often lead to dreadful scars that last many years and tear families apart? Does she agree that as long as there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, burglaries should always be prosecuted through the court, and never dealt with by out-of-court procedures such as cautions or penalty notices for disorder?

Vera Baird: I cannot emphasise too strongly how important the Government consider prosecuting domestic violence. My hon. Friend was good enough to tell me that he was worried about the removal of the sanction detection count rate, and about the possibility that it had had a bad effect on arrest rates. I have looked into the matter for him, and have established that although sanction detection rates are no longer a target, they are still counted in Nottingham. The figures that I have found do not quite agree with those that he has given. As there is no offence of domestic violence, it is quite difficult to quantify it in the terms to which he has referred. However, if he is not satisfied with my answer I shall be happy to meet him, and I should also be very pleased to visit Nottingham.

The Leader of the House was asked—

Mark Harper: I note that answer, but it is rather unspecific. The Kelly report contains some specific proposals that require primary legislation, so can the Deputy Leader of the House give us any more detail about when those specific measures will be brought forward, given that relatively few sitting days are left before the end of this Parliament and therefore it will not be able to introduce some of those measures if she does not get a move on?

Barbara Keeley: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a very recent meeting with a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions. As it took place only very recently, we would not be expecting that quick a recovery to be made, but we hope for an improvement.

Barbara Keeley: It was not me who gave the evidence to the Committee, but my predecessor. I have quite recently had a meeting with an individual Minister and officials, when I used very stern words; I am prepared to do that. I am always happy to consider individual cases. If the guidance that my predecessor set out has not been followed, I would be very happy to take up the cases that the shadow Deputy Leader of the House has raised. Let me reiterate that the Government's recent response to the Procedure Committee's report supports further work on challenging unsatisfactory answers. I shall take that forward and hopefully the Procedure Committee will decide to do so, too.

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Nick Harvey: The Commission is very sympathetic to the requirements of Members who are unable to stand when addressing the House and whose words might therefore not be heard fully. I have therefore asked the relevant officials to investigate having microphone coverage throughout the Chamber. From the information available, I understand that the improvement sought by the hon. Gentleman should be possible, although significant physical work might be needed in the Chamber. I shall of course inform the hon. Gentleman and the House when the full investigation is complete.

The Leader of the House was asked—

Evan Harris: The Deputy Leader of the House should know that Government new clauses and amendments are not discussed in Public Bill Committees-clearly they cannot be, because they are moved after that stage. The Library has told me that, on four Bills alone, nearly 200 amendments, including 50 Government new clauses and amendments, were not scrutinised. Does she accept that we cannot go on like this? The Wright committee has set out a way to avoid the problem so that we do not have to demonise Government and the Government do not have to infantilise Members of this House.

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Nick Harvey: In the last 18 months, the House service has reconfigured building management systems and installed new remote energy meters and kitchen ventilation and lighting controls, as well as energy-efficient lighting and movement sensors. It has also initiated an IT upgrade and a server virtualisation programme, and begun an insulation trial as part of the cast iron roof project. An estate-wide environmental assessment is currently under way to identify future options, which include further building management system changes, voltage optimisation, draft proofing and behaviour-change programmes. That will allow for a challenging but realistic environmental target, supported by an action plan to be set before the House in 2010.

George Young: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business.
	Today there is a written statement from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the local government finance settlement for next year. Last year, as in most years, there was an oral statement on the Floor of the House, allowing us to question the Minister on behalf of hard-pressed council taxpayers in our constituencies. Why has that convention been broken for the last settlement before an election?
	Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a debate after the pre-Budget report on 9 December? Given the delicate state of the UK economy, does she not think that the House has a right to debate the Chancellor's plans?
	Pursuant to the answers we have just heard, will the Leader of the House give a clear indication of when she expects to find time for the House to debate and vote on the recommendations of the Wright Committee-the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons? Unlike the right hon. and learned Lady, I welcomed the report when it was published, particularly since many of the ideas reflected what the Opposition had already proposed. In written evidence to the Committee in July, she said that she wanted a quick report
	"so that the proposed reforms can be considered for implementation early in the next Session."
	I share that enthusiasm, so can we expect to have a debate and votes on the proposals before the end of January?
	I see in the future business set out in today's Order Paper that the right hon. and learned Lady has tabled a motion on the appointment of the chairman and other members of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Given the speed with which we need to move if we are to get the authority up and running, will she give time next week for that debate?
	Will the right hon. and learned Lady give a statement on the timetabling of her Equality Bill? Yesterday, on a point of order, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) noted that her Bill will have only one day on Report, despite the size of the legislation and the number of amendments, excluding Government amendments, that have already been tabled. The right hon. and learned Lady has given several promises to the House that her Bill will provide an exemplar of good scrutiny; we would expect nothing less from the parliamentarian of the year. Will she give an assurance that she will translate her fine words into action?
	May I repeat my call for a stand-alone debate in Government time on Afghanistan? Yesterday, the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, accused the Prime Minister of
	"squeezing the defence budget for approximately eight years."
	The right hon. and learned Lady has said on several occasions that she recognises the need to find time for a debate on Afghanistan. As Downing street has briefed that a decision from President Obama on troop levels is imminent, will she promise to ensure that the House has an early opportunity to discuss the implications of that decision for our forces on the ground?
	Finally, may I ask once again when the right hon. and learned Lady will give us the date of the Easter recess? She said last week that it would be announced "in the usual way". If that is the case, why did she not do it in the usual way when she gave us the date of the Christmas and February recesses more than four weeks ago? Is her reluctance to announce the date in any way related to the careless whisper from the Home Secretary, who this week betrayed his fears that next year's poll would be
	"a watershed election, à la 1945, à la 1979, more so than 1997"?
	Does the right hon. and learned Lady share those anxieties, or is she made of tougher stuff than the Home Secretary?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend is very persistent, and he has shown that in raising this issue for the second time this morning. It is a very serious issue, and we are at an advanced stage in considering the options for including provision for a compensation scheme for victims of overseas terrorism in the Crime and Security Bill. Compensation is available for victims of terrorism in this country, but my right hon. Friend is raising the case of victims of terrorism abroad, and the gap in the system. We are taking steps to deal with that.

Lynne Featherstone: In business questions on 16 July the Leader of the House said that the Solicitor-General would discuss how to handle the Equality Bill on Report, and would consult Members. No consultation has taken place and we will have only one day, which is completely inadequate. Members on both sides of the House have tabled amendments that need to be debated. Will she ensure that they are debated?

Harriet Harman: Amendments and new clauses have been tabled, and I am sure that they will receive sufficient debate. There have been discussions. We do does not usually go into what happens through the usual channels, but I am confident that the substance and issues that need to be debated will be, and we can then all focus on putting the contents of the Bill into practice.

Gordon Prentice: We read that a  News of the World reporter bullied by the then editor, Andy Coulson, won a staggering £800,000 at an employment tribunal this week. May we have an early debate on workplace bullying to underline the fact that it is unacceptable, no matter where it comes from?

Greg Mulholland: Tetley's ales have been brewed in Leeds since 1822, but now the parent company, Carlsberg, is seeking to close the brewery and brew under licence at another brewery, rumoured to be Black Sheep in Marsham. May we have a debate on honesty in product promotion? Tetley's can only be a Leeds beer if brewed in Leeds with Leeds water: anything else would not be Tetley's.

Christopher Fraser: I have called for a debate on 2012 Olympics on many occasions, and each time the Leader of the House fobs me off. Given the astronomical cost of the event and the fact that the chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority has said,
	"Next year is set to be our toughest yet as activity on site reaches a peak",
	will the Leader of the House give time for this important debate as early as possible so that we can discuss in this Chamber the true cost of that event?

Keith Vaz: May I support the call by the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) for a debate on education so that we can discuss the concept of "hard" and "soft" federations? One of my local schools, Rushey Mead, is the best performing in the city, and it is to be federated with a school that is the worst performing. Does the Leader of the House agree that consultation with parents is absolutely vital in our education system?

Harriet Harman: It is Department for Children, Schools and Families questions next week, so I suggest that the schools Secretary is the right person to ask that question.

Harriet Harman: Many people will have been very disappointed that the case against the banks in relation to charges on overdrafts and other matters did not succeed in the Supreme Court, but that does not let the banks off the hook. People can apply for ex gratia and discretionary payments, and the Government are absolutely determined to ensure that we give every protection to the consumer. The banks need the trust and confidence of the public, and they need to do a good job. They are the lifeblood of small business and support the economy, and they should not be ripping the country off.

Harriet Harman: The Government have undertaken an unprecedented devolution of power so that there can be what has been described as Scottish solutions to Scottish problems and so that Scottish people can make the decisions affecting them in their Parliament. The depiction of us as being on the back foot over this agenda cannot be right. I do not know the technical issues about firearms, but I am sure that the matter has been looked into very carefully. However, I am also sure that if the hon. Gentleman requested it, he could have a meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Harriet Harman: Obviously, the House must scrutinise all Bills and it must do so effectively. Also, the Government, elected and commanding a majority in the House, must get its business. One of the bits of business that we want to get through not only the House of Commons, but the House of Lords, is the Equality Bill. I know that the hon. Gentleman supports it, and I look forward to a good debate on Report.

Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), the Leader of the House just said that cross-party discussions were held about issuing the local government finance settlement as a written ministerial statement, rather than an oral statement. May I confirm that that is not the case? She implied that, because this is the third of a triennial settlement, there is in essence no need for an oral statement. However, last year-the second year-there was an oral statement. Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that departing from the custom in the House of having an oral statement on local government finance would deny Members a chance to raise questions with the Government about the level of the grant that their authorities receive?

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were in the Chair yesterday when I raised with the Chancellor a very serious matter: namely, that contrary to precedent, having issued an indemnity to the tune of £62 billion to HBOS and RBS, and having chosen to do it in secret-his choice-he did not inform me as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee or the Chairman of the Treasury Committee. The Chancellor told me in reply that he did not need to do so because of legislation. That legislation was not on the statute book till some months after he issued the indemnity. In any event, it covers a different sort of transaction. That is a serious matter. Nobody in Parliament was informed, even in confidence, of what was going on, contrary to ancient traditions and conventions. May I write to you in detail and ask you to defend the privileges of the House?

John McFall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support the covert operations, but I fear that perhaps next week, a report from the National Audit Office will be published, which indicates that the £61 billion had been given. Given that the Governor of the Bank of England disclosed that at a Treasury Committee sitting, I fear that the Bank of England and the Treasury have been caught with their fingers in the till. There is a serious question mark over public and parliamentary relations in the Treasury and the Bank of England. Given that the loans were repaid in January 2009, I do not understand why they were not disclosed. I feel that both Parliament and the Select Committees have been short-changed. There is a need for a protocol that affects Select Committees and Parliament. I look forward to its being developed as a result of the correspondence.

George Osborne: I look forward to reading the diary entry about that one. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was served a lot of very good wine at the lunch.
	My point is that a lot of hope was placed in the fact that when the Office for National Statistics came to revise its figures for the third quarter, they would show that the economy was, in fact, expanding rather than contracting. Well, we have had the first revision, which is often the most significant one, and the figures show that the economy is still contracting. We all wish that that were not the case, but those are the official figures, no doubt endorsed by the Government and the Treasury, and that is the reality with which we have to deal. The fact is that Britain is still in recession when almost every other country in the world, including the United States, has now come out of recession.
	One would have thought that the Government would use the last opportunity in this tired Parliament to address the fundamental problems that hold back a sustainable and strong recovery: the lack of credit and the lack of confidence in the British economy-the lack of credit to finance the recovery, the lack of confidence that the country can deal with its debts and go for growth. But no, the Government have not addressed those fundamental problems and instead they chose to use this Queen's Speech to try to establish their famous political dividing lines.
	Many Back Benchers have taken part in these six days of parliamentary debate on the Queen's Speech, but as it happens, the most accurate analysis of what this Queen's Speech was really about was provided by the very first Labour Back Bencher to be called by the Chair to speak in the main debate. The right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) said this, just minutes after the Prime Minister had sat down last week:
	"Instead of legislating in a way that sets out a constructive ambition for the future, I fear this Queen's Speech shows that we are dominated by the political fear of our opponents. That is not the right way for Labour to win" -[ Official Report, 18 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 37.]
	in 2010. There we have it: no constructive ambition for the future and not the best way to govern the country. That is not a Conservative MP speaking, but a former member of the Labour Cabinet. Some Labour Members will, of course, dismiss their former Home Secretary as one of the most usual of the usual suspects, always plotting to unseat the leader of the Labour party-and always, to our great relief, failing in those plots.
	The truth is, however, that the right hon. Member for Norwich, South is not the only one who thinks that the Queen's Speech was little more than a cynical exercise in political calculation. My attention has been drawn to the blog of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope). It goes under the inspired title of "The Audacity of Pope"- inspired because it presumably attracts millions of unwitting visitors who thought they were hitting on something a bit more presidential. If we look at this Labour Member's blog, we discover that "Pope" has the audacity to say this about the Government's programme that we are being asked to vote on tonight. He says:
	"The Queen's Speech... will be designed to put the Tories on the spot apparently. We are told that there will be clear dividing lines between us and the Tories... The people I represent don't want this kind of yah-boo politics, they want to know what we are going to do for them. The purpose of the Queen's Speech is to... outline a vision of what the Government can do for our country; its purpose is not to score points off the other parties."
	The hon. Gentleman then says:
	"Am I alone in thinking that this strategy is, well, not brilliantly thought out?"
	I can reassure him that no, he is not, as this has been the most transparently cynical, empty and political legislative programme put before this Parliament in living memory.
	Our country is in recession as the rest of the world recovers; the great social problems of our age go unanswered; our political system has lost all trust. It is time that we had strong national leadership. Instead, we have a Queen's Speech that even the Government's own supporters say has everything to do with the narrow interests of a beleaguered Prime Minister and nothing to do with the national interest.
	This is what a member of the Cabinet could not resist boasting to  The Times newspaper two days before the Queen's Speech was even delivered. It will be, he said, the
	"most political in 12 years".
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to use the protection of parliamentary privilege to name the Cabinet Minister I believe responsible for saying that. I have done my research, cross-checked with past records, and I believe those remarks were made by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. It is exactly the pattern of behaviour that we have come to get used to from him. In June, for example, he told everyone he was going to have the Chancellor's job in a couple of days' time, while earlier this month he briefed on how he was winning his spending battle with the Treasury.
	I wonder whether the Chancellor-I do not expect him to say anything-has noticed the similarity between the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and one of those James Bond villains, who sits in his secret lair, stroking the cat, cooking up his dastardly plans for world domination, and then, just before he puts them into effect, he is unable to resist the temptation to show off and tell everyone about those plans. We know what happens next in the films: Bond escapes, the plans collapse, and our villain departs in an escape pod and abandons the imploding mother ship. We fully expect to see the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families attempt the political equivalent in the next few months. It is precisely because Cabinet members have told us that this Queen's Speech is so cynical, so transparently an attempt to draw artificial dividing lines, and so little motivated by what would serve the national interest, that we must approach each measure with considerable suspicion about its motives.
	The Treasury has put two Bills before us: the Financial Services Bill and the fiscal responsibility Bill. Do either of those Bills even begin to rise to the economic challenge that we face? Will they provide the credit and confidence that is so badly lacking? Will they tackle the deficit and go for growth? No, they will not. As we will debate the Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill on Monday, I will not dwell on it today, except to comment on the Walker review published this morning. Everyone wants the boards of banks to do their job better and to understand more fully the risks that they are running. We do not want a repeat of what happened at the Royal Bank of Scotland, where an all-powerful chief executive went unchallenged by his own board, by Government regulators, and by a Government who instead chose to knight him for services to banking.
	I spoke to David Walker this week, and we support his plans to shake up the bank boards and improve their risk controls. We also support his proposals to make those banks disclose the number of their employees who are on high salaries. What happened to all the talk from the Government that they would disclose people's names as well? Lord Myners said just two months ago that the pay and the identity of the highest-paid bankers would be disclosed by the Government. However, when asked about that on the radio this morning, David Walker said that
	"the idea being canvassed by Lord Myners...is not supported by a shred of evidence of the kind that I am interested in."
	That is not what one would call a ringing endorsement of the Chancellor's City Minister from the Chancellor's City adviser. Perhaps Lord Myners will be the next GOAT to slip the tether. When it comes to the Government and the banks, surely the public are entitled to ask why the Government talk tough and make promises, but then fail to deliver. As we wait to see bonus payments over the coming months, we will remember the Prime Minister's promise that the era of the big bonus is over.
	We will look in detail at the Financial Services Bill next week, but we know that it will do nothing fundamental to alter the tripartite system of regulation that failed Britain so spectacularly. Why? The simple and political reason is that the Prime Minister is the sole architect of the structure and does not want to admit that he got it wrong. We also know that the Financial Services Bill will do nothing to address the real financial scandal in our country today-that tens of thousands of businesses are still facing a credit crunch.
	This Queen's Speech has been littered with contributions from Members on both sides of the House who have firms in their constituency facing bankruptcy because they cannot get reasonable access to credit, on reasonable terms. The Bank of England's figures show lending to business continues to contract, and the chambers of commerce say credit conditions are getting worse.
	A year ago, the Chancellor talked at length in the Queen's Speech debate about all the Government programmes that would help. Let us look at what has happened to them 12 months later. What happened to the capital for enterprise fund? It has helped seven businesses. The Chancellor told us that the trade credit insurance scheme would provide £5 billion of credit insurance; instead, it has provided £18 million of credit insurance. What about the guarantee for asset-backed securities, which, we were told, would tackle the heart of the credit crunch? Not a single guarantee has been provided by that scheme.
	If we want answers to the central question of why Britain remains in recession while the rest of the world recovers, we can start by looking at the dismal failure of this Government to deliver on their promises to get credit flowing in our economy.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend has been uncharacteristically generous to the Government. Will he also remind the House that the automotive assistance programme, which was promised as a £2.3 billion scheme in January, turned out to be a £400 million guarantee, and so far just one loan of £10 million has been made, to Tata?

John Redwood: Was there not one important point behind this idiotic Bill? The Labour Government are now saying that they need to either cut spending or increase taxes to the tune of £100 billion. Does my hon. Friend think that Government Back Benchers have realised what that means?

George Osborne: We are all in this together, as it happens, and the sooner the Government understand that in the last few months they have left in office, the sooner they can start to salvage some of their reputation. A big choice faces the Chancellor of the Exchequer: is he going to stand up to the Prime Minister of the day? Is he going to be like Roy Jenkins and do the right thing even if it is politically inconvenient? Is he going to be Roy Jenkins or not?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman quoted Richard Lambert, who, he said, had expressed the view that the deficit should be eliminated in the space of one Parliament. I asked him whether or not he agreed with that. My position is quite clear. I think that the amount of borrowing must be reduced by half, but what concerns me is that we do not get ourselves into a position in which we seriously damage the economy by removing support in a way that would harm businesses and enterprise. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he would go further than what I am proposing. I simply ask him to clarify that.

George Osborne: I am not going to set some artificial target for the size of government as a proportion of GDP, not least because it will depend on the size of the GDP, which may alter every year. It may shrink, which is what as we have seen it do in the last two years. I am pretty clear about the fact that the current level of over 50 per cent. is unsustainable, and I would imagine that most Labour Members agree with that.
	Let me correct the hon. Gentleman. What I said was that I agreed with the Governor of the Bank of England, who has said that there needs to be
	"an elimination of a large part of the structural deficit"
	that
	"takes place over the lifetime of a parliament".
	Let us look at what the international community is now saying about the Government's plans. According to the verdict delivered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development this week,
	"an announcement of concrete and comprehensive plans upfront would enhance macroeconomic stability"
	in the United Kingdom, and would strengthen the recovery. The director general of the CBI has said:
	"The UK's rating must be put beyond doubt".
	I should like to hear from the Chancellor, when he stands up to speak, whether he thinks that it is a matter of Government policy to try to protect that credit rating. I should like to know whether he thinks that it is a top priority for the Treasury. That is the issue that is being discussed out there in the international market, and by domestic businesses deciding whether to invest in this country.

Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key point in relation to public confidence is the interest that the country will be paying on its national debt? The rate was 5 per cent. last year, and it may rise to 9 or 10 per cent. We are talking about over £65 billion, and that is surely something that the Government must address.

Alistair Darling: We have just listened to 30 minutes of the shadow Chancellor's customary political knockabout, but we have not heard very much in the way of any specific alternative proposals he might have, which is a pity because this occasion is an opportunity for us to discuss the future of our country. This debate is taking place at a critical time, because the decisions we take now and over the next few weeks and months, particularly on the economy, will determine our future for the next five, 10 and 20 years. It is therefore very important that the debate is about how we can ensure that this country can prosper in a globalised economy, and how we can secure sustainable growth over the long term, because that is one of the best ways of restoring health to our public finances and creating jobs in the future.
	Our approach has three strands. The first of them has been to take action to help people and businesses in order to ensure that the recession would be less painful and less deep than it otherwise would have been. The Conservatives have always made it clear that they have been against each and every such step and proposal. Secondly, as I made clear in the pre-Budget report 12 months ago, in my view it was essential that as recovery was established we reduced the deficit. I set out a plan then, which was confirmed in this year's Budget, to halve the deficit over four years, because I believe that is a reasonable thing to do, but we must do it in a way that protects front-line services and does not damage the economy. Crucially, the third strand of our approach-I thought we might have heard more about this from the Opposition today-is to ensure growth, because that is very important for shaping our future.
	At every stage, the Conservative party has made the wrong call. Too often, it has played politics rather than dealt with the real issues we faced. It was calling for austerity, rather than having the ambition to go for sustainable growth. Interestingly, although the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) managed to utter the word "growth" three or four times today, in his keynote conference speech just a few weeks ago he did not utter the word once. That is odd given that we read in the newspapers at the beginning of this week that growth is the new Conservative party mantra. Warm words will never achieve growth. What is needed to ensure we achieve it are specific proposals.

Alistair Darling: If the hon. Gentleman sits down nicely, I will let him back in later. I am mindful of what his ancestor did to a former Prime Minister when he fell out with him, so I will be very careful and make sure that I come back to him.
	We need to be reminded of the recent action we have taken. That has made a difference, and people will look at how we reacted to what has turned out to be one of the deepest recessions ever and make a judgment on that. Let us compare what happened in the last big recession of the 1990s with current events. The extent to which Government intervention has made a difference is remarkable. It has made the downturn less painful than it otherwise would have been. In the 1990s, relative to GDP figures, twice as many households were repossessed, and about two and half times more businesses became insolvent. Crucially, relative to the fall in GDP, almost four times as many people would no longer be employed if we had followed now the policies that were adopted then. It should also be remembered that in the 1990s and 1980s interest rates were not 0.5 per cent., as they are today. In the 1990s they were 15 per cent., and they were higher still in the 1980s. As a result of that difference between then and now, at present someone paying a mortgage of about £100,000 is saving over £200 a month, whereas in the 1990s they would have been paying over £900 more a month. That demonstrates the difference that is made when a Government are prepared to take action to help people and businesses.

Alistair Darling: I shall make further progress, and give way later.
	Our support for individuals, whether we are talking about the cut in VAT, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates has had the same effect as a 1 per cent. interest rate cut, the 22 million basic rate taxpayers who are paying less tax, the pensioners who have seen the benefit of our increasing the amount of capital that they can hold before they lose eligibility for pension credit, or the increase in pensions, shows that we have done everything we can to help people through this downturn. For home owners, we have managed to reduce the level of repossessions that was expected. The "time to pay" scheme has helped more than 150,000 businesses spread their payments of £4 billion-worth of tax, and at the end of the day, 95 per cent. of that is still repaid to the Revenue. The numbers involved in the scrappage scheme might be small, but it has had a tremendous effect in boosting confidence. For example, Honda has announced that production of one of its models will be moved to Swindon from Japan, and Nissan has been able to take on more people. The outlook at the beginning of this year for the automotive industry was pretty grim, but the measures that we have taken have made a difference in improving and lifting the level of confidence. None of that would have happened had the Conservative party been in power.

Alistair Darling: First-I shall come directly to the question-I should say that I have always been of the view that we would not see positive growth until the turn of the year; I have said that on many occasions in this Chamber and elsewhere. I have always been clear that I was not expecting, even in the revision we saw yesterday-it is good that the revision is in the right direction and that the rate of contraction was less than the Office for National Statistics had thought-to see us return to growth until the turn of the year. It was inevitable that countries would come out of recession at different rates. This country has a very large financial services sector, which in the long run will be of benefit to us, provided that sector is properly supervised and regulated. That sector has patently had to go through some very difficult conditions, and that is bound to affect the rate at which we enter recovery. I do not think there is any great mystery about that; I would have thought that that was rather an obvious point.
	The hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that we have still to come out of recession. I think it is a good thing that other countries are coming out of recession, and I should say to him that every country that has done that has one thing in common: they all put in place a stimulus to their economy. That is something that he opposed, and when America came out of recession he tried somehow to pretend that nothing had been done-even the Republican Administration took a different view, let alone President Obama and his subsequent work. The stimulus is one of the reasons why America has come out of recession, and that is a very good thing, which I support.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right to say that youth unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s was one of the reasons why not only were we held back economically, but whole communities were scarred. That was especially so because a lot of the people who had lost their jobs were from particular communities that had very high unemployment. It is really important that we spend this money. The Conservative party's stance right from the start has been to oppose the action that we have taken and oppose the money that we put into the economy, including the £5 billion to help people get back into work.

Alistair Darling: I noted that point when I last met the director general of the CBI. As I understand it, it is the policy of many of their members that we should maintain public expenditure, not least in the areas in which they have an interest. It is certainly the CBI's view that infrastructure spending is important. It is important, not just now but in the future.

Alistair Darling: It is important that all parts of the country share in the benefits of public spending. I know that Croydon is a big employer, particularly through the UK Border Agency. Obviously, when we consider how to disperse jobs to different parts of the country, we do not want to damage a local economy without ensuring that we take compensatory steps. Decisions will have to be taken from agency to agency and from group of workers to group of workers, but I think that the idea of dispersing jobs is important.
	A number of hon. Members mentioned financial services reform. We will return to it next week, and like the shadow Chancellor I think that we should debate the Financial Services Bill more extensively next week-I sense that that is the mood of the House. Giving statutory responsibility for financial stability is very important. As I have said on countless occasions, I do not share the shadow Chancellor's view that the FSA and the Bank of England should be merged. The fact of the merger would create a lot of uncertainty, especially at a time such as this when there is still a lot of work to be done. I believe that organisations have distinct responsibilities and that the organisations can work together. Indeed, the new council for financial stability will ensure that proceedings are rather more open and transparent in the future, which is important. I have also made the point that other countries have many more regulators than we do.
	The legislation will also provide for the implementation of the Walker report. Like the shadow Chancellor, I welcome the conclusions of Sir David Walker. We will implement them in full and the legislation will allow us to do that when we need a statutory change. There might be an argument for having more bands, or wider bands, in relation to the disclosure of income. I am not in favour of disclosing the names of individuals, for reasons that I think that most people would understand, but it is in the public interest for people to know the range of payments that are made. Sir David Walker has done a very good job of work, not least because one thing that clearly went wrong over the past two years was that it is obvious that a number of non-executive directors simply did not do their jobs. They were not asking the questions that they should have asked and they were not holding the chief executives to account. That has to stop and David Walker's measures will go some way towards ensuring that.
	I said that supporting the economy is important and so, too, is ensuring that we strengthen our fiscal position as the recovery is established. The pre-Budget report will take place in just under two weeks, and the House will understand why I do not propose to go into any of the detail that I will need to set out at that stage. I shall return to the question of the fiscal responsibility legislation at that stage, too.
	The House should be in no doubt that it is important that we should ensure that, as recovery is established, we halve the deficit over that four-year period. I set out that proposal last year and repeated it at the Budget. That remains the Government's policy and it is something that we will do. It is very important, not just because borrowing needs to come down-it has inevitably risen because of the downturn-but because it is part of the conditions that we need to ensure growth in the future. It has to be done in a way that does not damage individuals and businesses at the same time.

Alistair Darling: I missed that exchange, exciting as it must have been. I am more than happy for the pre-Budget report to be debated and I hope that the usual channels will make that possible, preferably before the House rises for the Christmas recess. There is certainly no barrier on my part.
	The shadow Chancellor was telling us that he too believed that we had to be more responsible. However, he needs to have a good look, not only at his plans for reducing the deficit, but also at the plans announced by him and his colleagues for additional spending. It is remarkable that, at a time when they are telling us that we should not be spending so much, the Opposition have produced proposals on the married couples allowance and inheritance tax, as well as on getting rid of the top rate of tax at 50p and changing pension tax relief- [ Interruption. ] Some Opposition Members ask when the shadow Chancellor said that, but he has done so at just about every opportunity. We see shadow spokesmen and spokeswomen jumping up and down promising to spend more here, there and everywhere.
	The Conservative party's proposals on inheritance tax remain its policy, but I have been looking at the impact and the total cost of all their proposals. What I have mentioned so far amounts to only about £10 billion of promises, but there are others as well. The more interesting question is, who gains? We know that all the benefit from the inheritance tax proposals would go to about 2 per cent. of the largest estates, and that 98 per cent. of the public would not benefit.
	Again, if we look at the Opposition's married couples allowance proposal, we find that the highest earners would receive 13 times as much of the benefit as people at the other end of the income scale. If we look at the 50p increase, it is patently obvious that people at the top end would benefit, as they would from the proposal to reverse the pension tax relief.
	The Leader of the Opposition said that his party cared about poverty and inequality, but it is not surprising that he was cheered at the Tory party conference. People there obviously knew that he did not mean it and that he would not let the richest down. The Conservative proposals would benefit people at the top end of the income scale. Nothing has changed with the Conservative party.

Tom Clarke: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I believe that the Government behaved very courageously when they repeated the commitment to devote 0.7 of gross national income to overseas aid by 2013. We have heard absolutely nothing from the official Opposition on that. Does that omission concern him as it does me?

Alistair Darling: That is another subject about which I have many Opposition Members talk, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our commitment to development is very important: it is part of our responsibility and it is in the interests of this country.
	I shall give way to both of the other hon. Members who rose, and then I shall stop.

Justine Greening: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way, but an examination of spending habits suggests that people in the top 10 per cent. income bracket will gain nearly £800 a year from his VAT cut, while those in the bottom 10 per cent. will gain only about £100. That VAT stimulus will be paid for through a rise in national insurance payments that will tax jobs that otherwise would have gone to unemployed people. Does he not agree that that is surely totally inequitable?

Alistair Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The figures show that the amount of commercial lending is broadly the same now as it was just before we got into the banking problems in August 2007. Many businesses, for understandable reasons, have repaid very substantial sums, but we still have to make sure that credit flows into the economy-something that is particularly important as the economy begins to recover. That is why we are continuing to work closely with all the banks, and not just the ones that we own, to make sure that the credit is available. It is also of critical importance that people are able to see how much that credit costs, not just in terms of interest rates but in terms of fees and everything else. That is important in every part of the country, including in Northern Ireland.
	It is absolutely essential to have a policy on growth, and it is quite clear that the Opposition do not have one. Growth was barely mentioned in the shadow Chancellor's speech today, but the Government have taken action in relation to broadband provision, businesses, innovation and planning to ensure that we do get growth in the future.
	People cannot say that they want to go for growth while in the same breath they commit to pull support from the economy. We have to make sure that we get the economy into recovery. We need to get that recovery established, and ensure that we reduce our borrowing over a four-year period in a way that does not damage the economy. That is very important, but it is also important that we get growth for the long-term future.
	In today's debate, we have had confirmation that the Opposition would not have done what was necessary 12 months ago. They have opposed every measure that the Government have introduced. They had no answers then, and it is clear that they have none now.
	This Queen's Speech sets out some important measures that will make a difference to the economy. I commend the Gracious Speech to the House.

Vincent Cable: My party's approach to the Queen's Speech is summarised in the amendment put forward by my party leader and my colleagues. Essentially, it is that the limited time that remains in this Parliament should be used for some modest political reforms and that devoting it to the range of legislation proposed in the Queen's Speech is not justified. However, two economic Bills-on fiscal policy and on banking-have been announced and it seems appropriate that we take the opportunity to discuss them.
	I shall start with the question raised by the Conservative spokesman concerning Britain's place in the current economic crisis. It seems a good place to start: why is Britain in the worrying position of having suffered a recession that is deeper and longer than that faced by other developed countries?
	Essentially, there are two reasons. One is that the consumer boom, which was based on inflated asset prices-particularly for housing-and consumer debt, was allowed to get out of control. There was a great deal of complacency about that.
	The bigger reason, which the Chancellor has just given from the Dispatch Box, is that Britain is unusually dependent on the banking sector. We had a major international banking crisis; British banks' balance sheets account for roughly 4 to 5 per cent. of our gross domestic product-far in excess of the United States or most European countries. It was inevitable in those circumstances that a major banking crisis would inflict great damage on the British economy. In that sense, the Chancellor was absolutely right in his analysis. It is unfortunate that his predecessor, now the Prime Minister, went around claiming that we would get out of this recession much sooner than everyone else, because the underlying structural problems were so obvious, and the Chancellor has correctly identified them.
	Let me proceed to two specific issues, one of which is the fiscal responsibility Bill. We have all had our fun with it. The Conservative spokesman had a bit of fun today, with jokes about the Chancellor being hauled off to the Tower of London, and about unenforceable legislation. I shall try to approach it in a different way, to try to understand what the Government are trying to do.
	Is there a role for declaratory legislation, which sets an objective that is not intended to be enforced or cannot be enforced? Does such legislation actually have a role? The point that has been made to me, and has also been made from the Back Benches, is that such legislation has been introduced in other contexts; for example, climate change. I think all parties have signed up to targets in that context. That is a serious point.
	There are two differences, however. First, setting quantitative targets that have a major impact on long-term business planning is different from setting financial targets in a rapidly moving economic world. There is a fundamental difference. The climate change targets are important, too, because they link directly to treaty obligations, so there is an argument for embedding them in the law. I accept that. It is an interesting precedent for the law being used to set good objectives that cannot be enforced. Let us apply it to the present case. Is it sensible or helpful for the Government's fiscal objectives, which I think are to halve their estimate of the structural deficit within a Parliament, to be embodied in the law?
	The Government have created a dilemma for themselves. If there is a rapid economic recovery, which I know the Government hope for and some of their projections suggest will happen, the objectives are far too modest, because if there is rapid growth it will be possible to reduce the fiscal deficit more rapidly. On the other hand if, as I fear may be the case, the British economy does not recover rapidly, we shall have all kinds of impediment. The banking system will not be working properly. The monetary policy stimulus will have to be terminated within the next year or so, in all probability, so we shall not have growth. In those circumstances, the Government's modest objectives may be much more realistic. However, we do not know which of those two futures will evolve.
	There is a particular difficulty with the position that the Conservative shadow Chancellor has taken. He assumes that the next Government, or this one, can somehow create rapid economic growth. Going back to the early days when the Prime Minister was in his ascendancy and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families was at his side, they claimed that they had in some way changed the fundamentals of British economic growth. The rather mundane truth is that the underlying rate of economic growth in Britain has been pretty much unchanged since the Napoleonic wars. Different Governments claim that they have found a magic formula-Mrs. Thatcher did, as did the present Prime Minister-but of course they do not fundamentally change anything. Underlying growth is likely to be quite modest, in which case there will be a significant effect on what it is possible to do in terms of fiscal policy.
	If we enter a period of rapid growth, the Government's aims will be too modest. There is a real danger that we shall get stuck in a slowly growing, recession-hit economy for a significant period, with high levels of unemployment. If that were the case, it would be disastrous to embark on rapid deep cuts in public spending in the short run. It would be completely inappropriate. Because we do not know what conditions will be, it seems foolish to set targets in stone in legislative form.
	Does that mean that the legislation is completely pointless? No, there is a role for legislation to strengthen the fiscal framework. I am probably not too far from the Conservative spokesman in his belief that we need an additional independent element in fiscal policy, as we have in monetary policy with the Bank of England. However, my party's approach would be more modest. There is probably an argument for giving the National Audit Office a stronger role in auditing what the Government have done-not just their forecasts as at present. The NAO could make an assessment about whether the Government have delivered on their targets.
	We have already had some strengthening of the legislation regarding the independence of the statistics office. That was a step forward and there is an argument for an independent audit role-an Ofsted-on fiscal policy. I agree with that, although I should not create quite such an elaborate institution as the Conservative spokesman proposes. None the less, there is a role for strengthening the institutional backbone of fiscal policy.
	I switch to the other, much bigger subject: what is happening in the banking system. Over the past couple of days, we have been reminded in several ways that major problems are still unresolved. There was yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on banks imposing what many people regard as unfair charges. There were also the revelations about the so-called secret loan. Today, we have seen the pathetic report from a City insider-the Walker report, which is an absolute disgrace. Before I came to the Chamber today, I was in a television studio with Lord Myners, whose eyes were rolling in embarrassment as he tried to explain away the fact that the Government are committed to that rather pathetic and limited document.

Vincent Cable: I think that was exactly what I said yesterday in relation to Lloyds bank. Equally, I said, and meant, that it was right for the Government to support the banking system and that there was a role for covert lending. I have no difficulty with that. I just want to make it clear, as I have done many times in the past, that although I have major disagreements with the way the Government managed the economy up to the crisis and with the way they have managed the banking system since, the intervention last October was right in almost every respect. It was right to give the guarantees, to make major Government equity investment and to partially nationalise the banking system. I do not retract that in any way.
	However, major problems are unresolved and the Government have been failing by not addressing them. The first-where the Conservative spokesman rightly started-is the failure of lending. As information trickles out, we are discovering that although Lloyds is broadly meeting its gross lending objective, its net lending flows are very limited indeed. NatWest and RBS are failing even to meet the limited lending objectives they were set. One noticed in the press last week that RBS was willing to cough up enormous sums to help Kraft to take over Cadbury, but that semi-nationalised bank is still unwilling to lend to very large numbers of good, solvent British companies. They have a good credit history and track record, yet they cannot get credit on reasonable terms. There is a major policy failure, which is the failure of Government representatives in United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd to make it absolutely clear that they have an obligation to act in the national interest.

Vincent Cable: The unravelling of the toxic asset problem may take a decade, which was the experience in many other banking crises. In the meantime, there is absolutely no reason why a clear steer should not be given to the nationalised and semi-nationalised banks to maintain a lending policy that helps to sustain the British economy, but that is clearly not happening.
	The second big issue, which is not being addressed properly, is the structure of the banks. The Chancellor always groans when I raise the subject with him, and comes back with his prepared line: "That's got nothing to do with the structure of the banks, and it was small, narrow banks such as Northern Rock that collapsed." I do not particularly want to turn this into a personal argument with him; I simply suggest that he reads the evidence that the Governor of the Bank of England yesterday gave to the Treasury Committee.
	The Governor said exactly what we Liberal Democrats have been saying: the structure of the British banks is not sustainable, and that is a serious problem. That problem does not centre entirely on the issue of the links between the narrow banks and the so-called casino banks, but he is seriously concerned. He is absolutely right to be concerned, because some of our very large global banks, which, for the most part, happen to have large investment banking operations, are expanding, or wish to expand, on the back of the Government guarantee. We know that in future crises, that guarantee will be called, as it was in this crisis. That is not an acceptable or sustainable position.
	At some point in the near future, the Government will have an obligation to intervene to break up the very large banks, so that those banks do not create such a degree of risk. I am not sufficiently expert on the banking system to be precise on how that is to be done, but it could be done in different ways. The Government must respond. I do not expect them to respond to me, but I expect them to respond to the warnings of the Governor of the Bank of England, who continues to point out that the issue is the major unresolved problem; it has not been addressed.
	On the issue of bonuses and remuneration, I have read the relevant sections of the Walker report. It pretty much reiterates what was said some months ago by Lord Turner, and what was already largely agreed at the G20. The issue is implementation, and how we create a regime in which bonuses are paid predominantly in shares, rather than cash. My question for the Government is whether legislation is necessary to achieve that purpose. I am not a parliamentary draftsman or a lawyer. I was under the impression that the financial services legislation and the powers devolved to the Financial Services Authority were adequate to allow it to impose an appropriate regime on the banks. Is that the case? What legal advice available to the Government has told them that they have to come back with yet another banking Bill to introduce measures that the FSA has clearly said are absolutely necessary to maintain the stability of the system?
	The Walker report became a topical issue today, particularly as it relates to transparency and disclosure. There has been a movement in the argument over the past few months. It was clear that Ministers expected and wanted the Walker report to propose full disclosure in relation to not just the generality of what they call top-end employees, but those employees' individual rewards. The Walker report has clearly backed off from making that recommendation under pressure.
	I think that Lord Myners is on record as having said that he saw no problem with individual disclosure. Why should there be a problem with it? Board members of public limited companies disclose their emoluments. What is there to hide? We are not talking about private companies that are completely independent. I can well understand why an entrepreneur setting up an engineering company-a private company-might wish to protect their privacy and not declare all their income, except to the tax man, but why should that apply in the cases that we are discussing? The banks in question are ultimately guaranteed by the taxpayer, and have an obligation.
	We have had an embarrassing light shone on dark corners in this House in the past few months. It has been quite painful, but I think that most people now accept that it was legitimate to shine that light, and that it is fundamentally healthy, in the long run, for there to be more transparency. That applies not just to Members of Parliament, but to other people in society, particularly those who depend on a taxpayer guarantee. The Government should have absolutely no inhibition in demanding individual disclosure. That is the central weakness of the Walker report recommendation. I note, however, that the Chancellor appears to be conceding that £1 million is perhaps a little bit too high an amount at which to set the poverty level in the City; he seems to be willing to drop that amount a little, and that is a step forward. On the question of individual disclosure, the report is, frankly, pathetically weak. Stronger action from the Government is needed.
	I agree with quite a lot of the things that the Conservative shadow Chancellor said, but he has a phrase that he invented: "We're all in this together." The truth is that we are not all in this together. Some people have done extraordinarily well out of the crisis. There is enormous prosperity in parts of the country, much of it unearned and much of it lucky. At the same time, there is enormous poverty and hardship, and there are people struggling with unemployment. We need to reflect our concerns about those widening inequalities of income and wealth in the tax system, and in how we approach the regulation of remuneration.

Andrew Smith: I welcome the Government's measures in the legislative programme, just as I welcome the steps that they have taken to get the economy growing again. The extraordinary global crisis that we have been through has reinforced the case for strong Government action, and there is no doubt that the action that our Government and others have taken has made the difference between recession and depression, and has shortened the period of recession.
	I would like to flag up two areas of concern, where a positive response from Ministers could make our programme even stronger. One is the position of mutuals, an issue to which others have referred on other days in this debate. Successful mutual financial institutions have particular strengths, in terms of a sensible balance between their borrowing and lending policies. They enjoy greater trust, especially among customers, than most banks. They are important to many communities and families throughout the country and, of course, they are critical for the housing market.
	It is crucial that mutuals should not suffer from distortion of the financial markets because of the huge amounts of money and effective underwriting that the Government have had to provide for the banks. There is widespread concern about that among building societies. That concern was voiced a couple of weeks ago by the Building Societies Association chairman, Graham Beale, who said that in circumstances in which financial institutions were trying to refinance their balance sheets in the retail rather than the wholesale market,
	"The net consequence is that the margin between savings rates and mortgage rates has been eroded.
	But the demand for retail deposits is so intense that rates have been pushed up in some cases to uneconomic levels. And this is often by institutions that carry real or implied unlimited guarantees because of their full or part state ownership."
	Similar pressures and potential distortions operate in the wholesale and inter-bank markets. The building societies that are able to access those markets face a bigger differential, as compared with the banks, than they did a few years ago. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate can give me an assurance that the Government and the Financial Services Authority are fully seized of that, and of the importance of ensuring fair conditions and regulations for the building society sector. It would be an utter tragedy if the action taken to rescue the public from banks that were responsible for the financial mess had the perverse consequence of weakening the building societies, which were not responsible for it.
	The second issue that I want to raise, which has not featured much so far this afternoon, is the importance of environmental sustainability and responsibility in bank regulation in general, and in the lending policies of banks sustained by public funds in particular. Let us take the example of the Royal Bank of Scotland.  The Guardian reported on 2 March this year that in the six months following the initial bail-out, RBS had been involved in financing loans worth nearly £10 billion to coal, oil and gas companies. That is more than a quarter of the amount that the bank had received from taxpayers at that point. Its loans finance oil exploitation in conflict regions in Africa and south Asia, drilling in untouched areas of the Arctic, tar sands oil extraction, and open-cast mining. We need to question very seriously whether, at a time when we rightly voice the priority that must be given to combating climate change, those are the investment priorities that public funds should be underwriting.
	I ask the Government to consider the environmental conditions that they should place on the bailed-out banks' use of public money, and I commend to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues the excellent book by Nick Silver, chair of the actuarial profession's resource and environment group, who, in conjunction with a number of environmental non-governmental organisations, puts the case for RBS becoming a bank of sustainability.
	There are three main thrusts to the argument. First, UK Financial Investments Ltd, as the custodian of the public interest, should ensure that RBS and others in which it holds a stake follow good practice for institutional investors in relation to environmental, social and governance considerations. The Government also have environmental and social obligations, so they should go further and seek positive incentives for environmentally sustainable investment policies, including targets for, and the monitoring of, cuts in damaging emissions.
	Secondly, as RBS is an important provider of finance to fossil-fuel and carbon-intensive industries, it, together with the businesses in which it invests, is attempting to externalise the risks of climate change which, sooner or later, will fall on taxpayers. Those are the same taxpayers who now own RBS, so those external costs are no longer carried by a third party. We can cut the long-term cost to the taxpayer by acting now on sustainability. That is the important message.
	Thirdly, if we are to cut our carbon-reduction targets, we need a huge increase in investment in low-carbon industries and renewable energy. I know that the Government accept that point, and clearly RBS could play a big and environmentally beneficial role, making good use of its expertise in renewable energy. The Environmental Audit Committee commended that approach to the Government in its report on 10 March, when it recommended that
	"the Treasury examine and report on how some form of environmental criteria for the investment strategies these"-
	Government-controlled-
	"banks pursue might be imposed, and what impacts this might have on UK sustainable development objectives."
	I hope that the Government will see the good sense in those ideas, and I am pleased that my good and right hon. Friend the Chancellor is here to hear them. There is enough of the Treasury chip still in my brain for me to know how resistant Treasury culture will be to those ideas, but they raise vital issues that will not go away. If there is a global danger even more potent than financial meltdown, it is climate change. It is surely right that, in pumping billions into the banking sector and looking at how to regulate it against financial irresponsibility, we put in place requirements for environmental responsibility to help the world to avert climate catastrophe.

Edward Leigh: I am just about to refer to the Chancellor, so, as he is leaving the Chamber, I hope that he will not mind if I take issue with what he said earlier this afternoon. My point relates to the very serious matter of the loan that was made to HBOS and RBS. I am not arguing with the principle that the Government wanted to keep it secret so as not to destabilise the markets; I am saying that there are clearly established protocols, whereby, when the Government decide to give an indemnity in secret-for instance, on a matter affecting national security-they must inform Parliament in confidence through the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury.
	There is a very good reason why. It is not my amour-propre, or that of the Treasury Committee Chairman, who is equally upset about the matter; it is because if I, as the Chairman of the PAC, had been informed of the matter, I would have told nobody. I would not have told anybody from my party's Front-Bench team or anybody else. I would, however, have discussed it with one person-and one person only: the Comptroller and Auditor General. He is the auditor of the Government, an independent figure, and he would have checked matters out and ensured that the whole thing was kosher. That is why he is there, and he would have done so in complete confidence.
	Over the eight years that I have been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have been told in confidence of many instances, particularly concerning national security, when the Government have had to issue indemnity. I have never leaked a single thing. In the 150-year history of the PAC, no Chairman has ever leaked anything that has ever been given to them of that nature. It is a serious matter-that, contrary to all those protocols and conventions, the Government decided not to inform Parliament in confidence through the Chairmen of those two Committees.
	Even more seriously, I believe that the reason why I was written to this week, 13 months late, is that the National Audit Office was closing in. The NAO's report on the banking support measures is imminent, and earlier the Treasury Committee Chairman spoke, on a point of order, in much stronger terms than myself. He said that he believed that the NAO was closing in and the Government decided that they had to release the information now, 13 months late. That is a serious matter, and I shall not let it go.
	I shall keep pursuing it, because this is why Parliament is set up-to protect the interests of the taxpayer and the people of this country. Occasionally Governments have to do things in secret and to protect the markets, but if they do they have to observe the protocols. They did not do so, and for the Chancellor to tell me yesterday that he was absolved from doing so by the Banking Act 2009, which by the way came into force months after the indemnity was given, is not good enough. I shall leave the matter there, but we must return to it.
	Like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I want to express extraordinary concern about the fact that, as of 31 October, total public sector debt stood at £829 billion. That is 59 per cent. of total national output. My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor made the point that there is now a very real danger that the ratings agencies-Moody's, Standard and Poor's and so on-may start to question the UK's ability to pay its debt and downgrade the triple A rating that we currently enjoy. That would make it more expensive for all of us to borrow. For the UK and for corporations, lower investment in the UK and higher unemployment could result, leading to a disastrous double-dip recession.
	Let us forget party politics for a moment. There is no choice: we have to address the deficit. The Government tell us that they are, indeed, going to reduce the deficit by half by the end of the next Parliament, but they have offered only broad clues about what they intend to do, with hints at tax increases and spending cuts. They are only hints, however; there are few detailed policies. There was one detailed policy, which would have saved only £300 million, and that was a pay freeze for top public sector earners. That is £300 million; it is nothing. Surely the people of this country, or Parliament, must have some idea of what the Government, if they are re-elected, will do to try to deal with public sector debt of £829 billion.
	I shall not get involved in great macro-economic arguments with any ideas that I might have; I shall go right down to the micro level. I have now chaired the best part of 400 PAC sessions, in which we have looked at Government efficiency, and one way in which we can climb out of this black hole-it is only one way in which we will achieve only part of the object-is to carry out Government programmes much more efficiently.
	I am worried that if a new Government are elected in May, or even if this Government are re-elected, Ministers, for instance at the Ministry of Defence, will be under Treasury instructions to cut x per cent. off their budget. So, the number of new aircraft carriers may be reduced from two to one; there may be a question mark over the joint strike fighter; or the number of Trident submarines may be reduced from four to three. In other words, the MOD will get up to its old tricks of moving programmes sideways and delaying them. But what about the efficiency of the procurement executive? New Ministers will have to get to grips with that issue on day one, and they may have to bring in outside help. We cannot allow the public sector, particularly the civil service, to continue with layers of management which simply do not exist in the private sector.
	The PAC has, I think, made some progress in the past eight years. We can make only so much, but we have identified proven savings-I wrote to the Chancellor earlier this week on the matter-of £4 billion. However, we have now gone further and identified another £9 billion that we can save without changing a single policy. I know that this is the detail of the debate and that it is not as exciting as the party political debate, but £9 billion is a serious amount of money and it can be saved. The savings have all been audited by the National Audit Office, representatives of which come to our Committee. If any of the recommendations we have made in the past eight years had been carried out, we could have saved not only the £4 billion, but another £9 billion.
	I shall give a few examples. Some £1.4 billion could be saved by Departments sharing back-office services such as finance and human resources; and £2.5 billion could be saved by all Departments matching the level of staff cost reductions achieved by the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Defence. Even a relatively simple twist of the hellishly complex benefits system could save a staggering £110 million, which would be a start. If the whole of Whitehall matched the example of some Departments in reducing running costs such as those for accommodation and IT, more than £1.3 billion could be saved. There is more. Improving how the public sector contracts and manages construction projects could save more than £2.6 billion, and developing the commercial skills of those who wield the Government's significant buying power could realise potential savings of more than £700 million, through cannier procurement of goods and services. Better use of consultants-the Committee has done a lot of work on them-alone could save £400 million. That is £9 billion just there.
	I am not making a sales pitch for the PAC. I believe that there must be a total change in attitude in the public sector; that Ministers and civil servants should assume that when they are spending public money, it is as if they are spending from their own personal bank accounts; and that the days of rapid rises in spending are now over.
	Actually, in a way, the days of targets may be over, because targets work in a growing budget. Typically, in the past 12 years, the Government have come out with a worthy objective and required the civil service to carry it out. When that did not happen, the Government had to impose targets. It is going to be very difficult to impose targets on a shrinking, contracting budget. The Government are going to have to trust professionals and cap their budgets in the health and education services, and they are going to have to ensure that our civil servants and managers deliver services to the front line, and not cut them while protecting their own jobs. That is not a good enough attitude from our public servants.

Tom Clarke: May I begin by saying that I welcome the economic measures in this Queen's Speech? I believe that they demonstrate the continued importance of the Government performing a substantial role in bringing this country out of a worldwide recession.
	It never ceases to amaze me that the Government's critics seem conveniently to have forgotten the cause, scale and unknown depth of this recession. In the context of employment, this year alone 38 million jobs will be lost worldwide, in which case Britain has done exceptionally well to withstand the hurricane of job losses devastating the jobs market around the world. Without Government action, a further 500,000 jobs would have been lost. Cutting VAT and cutting income tax were designed to help people and support the economy; 150,000 businesses were given more time to pay their tax bills; and unprecedented measures have been put in place to help 300,000 people stay in their own homes.
	The Queen's Speech sets out a programme of tough action on the big issues that matter to people. There is of course an alternative vision, which I would characterise as fundamentally pessimistic. The claim that Britain is broken is simply not true and I will offer my rebuttal in due course in this speech. Nor is it true to say there is no alternative to looking towards an age of austerity. Leaving people to sink or swim in a recession is an untenable, unforgivable and unworthy stance, and this Government can never be accused of taking it.
	Of course, this is a difficult period for our country but we need to remain optimistic. Britain has a bright future based on its greatest strength: the talent and enterprise of our people. There will be difficult decisions as we move out of this recession, but the answer is not to drain the life blood out of our constituents nor drain them of confidence and hope for the future. It would be a grave mistake to end the economic stimulus at this time. We have learned that when Government do nothing, the market does not necessarily always provide. Choking off recovery by turning off the life support prematurely would be fatal to growth, jobs, prosperity and our capacity to grow, not just for now, but for years to come.
	I particularly welcome the proposed measures in the Financial Services Bill, which demonstrate how the Government can provide the regulatory framework for a prosperous but stable financial sector. In the past year, I have received more inquiries from small businesses in my constituency than ever before. In the main, they have been about bank lending. I have made those representations known to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, including as recently as yesterday, and I am delighted to acknowledge that the Prime Minister in his recent speech to the CBI said that RBS and Lloyds, backed by the Government, will provide £27 billion of new lending for businesses this year and next and that other banks will follow. That is exactly the leadership language and action that small businesses up and down the country want. That is why the business community will always reject the notion of austere government.
	I am acutely aware that the construction industry has suffered during this recession. Re-igniting house building programmes would help not only the industry, but those who seek to find homes for themselves in future. I should like to cite just a couple of ideas that resonate with many in the construction industry, namely placing new obligations on banks proactively to lend to small and medium-sized enterprises, and making mortgage finance available to key first-time buyers who are priced out of the market by exorbitant deposit requirements. In my view we will never get the demand back into the housing market unless there are some special provisions for first-time buyers.
	Recently in my constituency, I had a meeting with Scottish Enterprise officials. The subject of discussion was the failure by some banks to lend to small businesses. However, that should now start to change. I urged Scottish Enterprise, as I do again today, to step up its efforts, and stressed that, in a time of recession and given the considerable public investment in Gartcosh business park in my constituency, it was time that the full potential of this site was realised. In terms of vision, location, connections and opportunity, this site has it all, and more importantly it has the capacity to employ around 1,200 people. That is what I want to see happen sooner rather than later, as a quarter of a century is a long time to wait. When that does happen, unemployment in my constituency will start to fall dramatically.
	I am also pleased that there is much activity in the business start-up rate. In Lanarkshire, 2,000 individuals have been provided with pre-start-up advice. Total starts are well ahead of the same period last year. There is still a healthy number of higher growth prospects in the pipeline, but difficulties raising finance are obvious. We have a vibrant local business community in my constituency. While I applaud the steps that the Government and other agencies have taken to help, there is always more that we can do. I know that the Chancellor is working hard to increase lending, and I ask him to continue to work hard for small businesses. We may see more evidence of that in his pre-Budget report.
	I end by paying tribute to North Lanarkshire council which successfully bid for 1,080 jobs from the Government's future jobs fund. This stimulus has helped bring the country to the verge of recovery as predicted earlier this year. I am glad that the Government are manifestly helping families through this difficult period. What it proves is that business prospers when the Government invest and regulate sensibly. There is no question but that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have won the argument here in the United Kingdom, and their leadership skills during this economic crisis are admired around the world.

Peter Luff: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), who is one of the most decent and loyal Members of the House. I share his optimism about the prospects for our nation, but we need to admit that our society, politics and economy are all broken and need a fresh approach.
	If more time had been available, I would have liked to paint some of the background to the economy that underlies my concerns and to talk at length about the issues confronting the unemployed, especially the young unemployed. It was an unusual deviation from his normal high standards for my good friend the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) to say that because we did not talk about unemployment much, we do not care about it. Of course we care passionately about unemployment, but I do not have the time to talk at the length that I would wish.
	The Queen's Speech has four characteristics, which are some genuinely good things; some dividing lines, which we would be better off without; some missed opportunities; and some very good intentions, although we all know what the road to hell is paved with. The good things include the ban on cluster munitions, which is absolutely right albeit far too late, and the home-school contracts, a very good idea from this side of the House. I welcome those aspects of the Queen's Speech.
	I am the Chairman of a Select Committee and I do not want to be too partisan today, but the dividing lines worry me. My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor set them out well in his opening remarks and I say as a parliamentarian, and more in sorrow than in anger, that a Government at the end of their allotted span should be concerned about the good of the country, not trying to wrong-foot the Opposition. It is a shame that the Government do not realise where their priorities should lie. It amuses me sometimes with some justice when things blow up in their face. For example, the free personal care proposals in the Queen's Speech blew up in their face, just like the 10p tax rate. Dividing lines do not always benefit those who seek to do the dividing.
	The tragedy is that the good intentions in the Bill are often also used to seek to divide. The commitment to continue to enshrine in law the abolition of child poverty by 2020 is an honourable aspiration, although one might ask why 2020 and not 2018 or 2022. As for the intention to legislate to halve the deficit, halving or reducing the deficit is clearly a good idea, but why halving? Why do we need legislation to do that in the first place? That point was ably made by the shadow Chancellor and the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman. To ask who would be prosecuted if we fail and what would be the legal sanction is to understand the folly of the proposal. Who is being prosecuted for the Government's failure to meet fuel poverty targets? As far as I am aware, no one is.
	We do not need legislation on such issues. We share a commitment across the House to achieve those things in different ways, to different time scales or by different methods. It is not the legislation that matters: it is the action that we should be taking. What we should have heard from the Government is a clearer establishment of their priorities, not their spurious legislative intentions.
	Protecting our long-term competitiveness as a nation requires action, not law, as well as some difficult decisions. To be fair to the Government, they are taking some of those difficult decisions, as well as some easy ones. I wish publicly to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), for the announcement he made yesterday about the filling of the post of chief construction adviser. That is a valuable response by the Government to a recommendation from my Select Committee that will greatly help the construction industry to improve its relationship with Government. I am really pleased about that.
	Let me say another public thank you to the Minister. Towards the end of the previous Session, he gave me a rather churlish reply to a parliamentary question on the national competency strategy, but he has responded magnificently today with what appears to be a good strategy and the welcome announcement of a major national composite centre of excellence centred on Bristol, which is the right place to put it. That sounds like a very boring and anoraky subject to those who do not understand it, but composite technology lies at the heart of our economic competitiveness, particularly in the aerospace sector and, as the document-I have not read it in detail-rightly says, in the manufacture of wind turbine blades. It is applicable in a whole stack of areas, including marine renewables technology, that require composites that do not corrode like metal. There are huge opportunities, so well done the Government on that-although it would be good to get the same amount of enthusiasm behind getting the automotive assistance scheme up and working.
	There are some difficult decisions to take in the context of the severe budget constraints that we all know we face, Conservative Members included. If I argue that we should not cut funding for university research, as I think that we should not, what conclusions do I reach on other aspects of Government spending? If I also think that the budget of UK Trade and Investment should probably be protected to help our exporters to export out of recession and bring wealth to the country, what further compromises do I have to make? I was struck by the fact that the radical proposals by the Institute of Directors to slash £50 billion from public spending also exempted UKTI from the axe.
	In the dying months of this Government, we need a focus on action, not legislation. I worry that such declaratory legislation takes time away from issues on which we do need to legislate; it distracts us with unworthy debates that we do not need to have. I think particularly of what is, for me, perhaps the most important Bill in the Queen's Speech-the Digital Economy Bill. That raises some hugely important questions that we started to tease out with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), who is also Financial Secretary, a couple of days ago. We do not know what the 2 megabits per second universal service obligation mentioned in the Bill really means, which is worrying. Is it a minimum? Is it an average, and if so, which kind-median or mode? Is it an advertised speed? We all know what that means, coming from internet service providers.
	Are we right to put public investment into a massive expansion of next generation access networks beyond that which the market would deliver? That is an important issue for the House to examine. Should we not be concentrating on the 40 per cent. of households who do not have access to broadband at all because they choose not to? It is there, they could take it, but they do not-why? Rather than worrying about imposing new taxes-the 50p tax on fixed lines seems very regressive, and, interestingly, represents one of the first occasions on which the Treasury has authorised an hypothecated tax, which could be a dangerous precedent-should we not be sorting out the mess of the business rate system, which deters investment in new fibre optic cables? Is it right for the Government to pick technologies to roll out next generation access? What will happen to satellite technology over the next few years? It might deliver faster, cheaper options for more remote communities.
	However, the Government are certainly right to attack illegal file sharing. Getting the protocols right and ensuring that proper warnings are issued by ISPs before they cut off the account holder is absolutely the right thing to do. Protecting the UK's creativity lies at the heart of one aspect of our economic prosperity, and I congratulate the Government on their position on that.
	I am sorry that clauses 38 and 39 of the Bill do not address the provision of compensation for radio microphones flowing from new access arrangements for the electro-magnetic spectrum. In their "Digital Britain" White Paper, the Government made a commitment to provide compensation for radio microphone users, but they seem to be wriggling off that hook. I hope that that commitment will be honoured in full. It would breach the sector's human rights, apart from anything else, and possibly destroy large sections of our entertainment, broadcasting and sporting industries were that compensation not to be offered as promised. That is one of the missed opportunities in the Bill.
	Another missed opportunity relates to a Bill that died a sad and tragic death in the last Session-the Postal Services Bill. I understand that the Government think that the linkage of part privatisation and settling the pension deficit should be brought together, but no longer feel able to propose that. We all know the reasons, but I will not go into that today in the limited time available. But what about regulation of the sector? We could move to make the reforms suggested in the Hooper review and bring Postcomm within Ofcom. Indeed, I would suggest that the Digital Economy Bill provides a vehicle to do that. Why not take the sections of the Postal Services Bill dealing with regulatory issues and implement them as part of that Bill? The sector cannot live in this regulatory hiatus, with Postcomm dying on its feet, not knowing its own future. Urgent action is required.
	A lot of other things could be done, too. For example, I believe that an omission of some seriousness from the Queen's Speech is measures to deal with illegal immigration, particularly that caused by fraudulent student applications. Why can we not move to a system of accreditation of institutions? Good universities and further education colleges know who they are admitting, but at present we are not working on that basis and there has been a massive increase in what appear to be fraudulent applications from the Indian sub-continent. Why can we not say that if an accredited institution is in receipt of a student, there should be an automatic assumption that that student's application should succeed?
	If we want to do good by small deeds, as I believe we should, why not legislate for a grocery market ombudsman, as called for in early-day motion 192, which I signed today? What a good step that would be to help the small business sector. That is the type of small good deed in a wicked world that the Government should be doing, rather than following grand strategies and making grand statements that are politically motivated and achieve nothing. This Government should have died with dignity. Instead, new Labour dies as it lives-partisan and divisive. It is a sad epitaph after such a confident beginning back in 1997.

George Howarth: I welcome the measures set out in the Queen's Speech. There are some useful measures that will serve the country well if they make it on to the statute book. However, I wish mainly to draw a contrast between what is happening today in our country and what happened in the 1980s and 1990s, when we had a Conservative Government.
	A good starting point is the recent credit crunch and downturn that we have experienced as part of the worldwide credit problems. There is no doubt that it has been a serious downturn with serious consequences, and we have heard a great deal of statistics relating to it today. However, in 1991, at the height of the last Conservative Government's downturn, unemployment in Knowsley as a whole, including my constituency, stood at 25 per cent. Now, as we start to move gently out of the current downturn, it stands at 8.9 per cent. That is unacceptable, by the way, and I am not for one minute crowing that it is only 8.9 per cent., because it means that a lot of people who want jobs do not have them, but the contrast is nevertheless worth pointing out. Some economists forecast that if the Tory approach to the economy were adopted, in so far as we can work out entirely what it is, it is quite possible that unemployment would reach 5 million.  [Interruption.] Some reputable economic forecasters have made precisely that point.
	My second point is about public services and investment, and the partnership between, in my case, Knowsley council and a Labour Government. Through the Building Schools for the Future programme, every secondary school in the borough has just reopened, or will reopen over the next few months, as a brand-new learning centre at a cost of £150 million. Not only are they in brand-new buildings, they have a completely different education philosophy. It is important to relate the matter back to real young people by saying that even before that, the rate of A* to C GCSE passes increased in the past decade from a pitifully low 17 per cent. to more than 57 per cent. It is still climbing, and there is still room for improvement, but that shows the contrast rather well.
	In addition, we can consider the health service. Two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I had the privilege of visiting the brand-new hospital in Whiston, which will serve our constituents. It is an astonishingly good building that cost £250 million, and it simply would not have been built without a Labour Government.
	To bring the debate back to a human scale, a few weeks ago, a constituent of mine, Dave Ryan, who is a head teacher, went to a local NHS walk-in health centre feeling ill. While he was there, they discovered that he was in the middle of a heart attack. He was then taken to the cardiothoracic centre in Liverpool, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has had some happy experience. Within hours, Mr. Ryan had had surgery and was back on the road to recovery. Let us contrast that with the hours of waiting on trolleys and months of waiting for an operation, or even an appointment, that were typical of the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s.
	I come now to the "however": Knowsley council, together with Tesco, put together a £400 million investment package-all private sector money-for Kirkby in my constituency. The package received planning permission from the local authority, went through a public inquiry and then sat on the desk of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who yesterday announced that he had turned down that opportunity. He has turned down £400 million of private sector investment in Kirkby, which, notwithstanding the improvements that I described earlier, and which we have genuinely experienced as a result of having a Labour Government, is one of the most deprived towns in Britain. I am astonished that the Government can turn away £400 million of investment in a town that desperately needs regeneration. It still needs investment in jobs, of which that package would have produced thousands.
	The local authority, many residents and those who support progress are now bitter about the action taken by the Secretary of State. I am calling for the Government to work with me, Knowsley council, Tesco and Everton football club, which is involved in the project too, to consider whether a new application, perhaps slightly scaled down, can be fast-tracked and put before the Secretary of State, so that the regeneration of Kirkby and the necessary number of jobs can be delivered.
	One of the reasons why my right hon. Friend turned down the application was the major opposition from Liverpool city council, St. Helens council and West Lancashire district council. The Liverpool city region now has a multi-area agreement and a city region cabinet led by the excellent leader of Knowsley council, Councillor Ron Round. But what good has it done us? What good has all the borough's work on that city-wide layer of government brought us? All it has brought us is opposition and no help from surrounding local authorities.
	I spoke to Councillor Round this morning, and I must warn the Government that he is considering whether Knowsley can carry on within the city region cabinet, which he leads and chairs. He might well conclude that he has to withdraw, and if he takes that decision, I will support him.
	Finally, there is the question of my support for the Government. I have been in government and out of government, but in more than 20 years of being a Member of Parliament, I have always been a loyal supporter of a Labour Government when we are in power, and of a Labour Opposition when we have been in opposition. However, unless the problem in Kirkby is resolved quickly, the Government cannot continue to rely on my support.

Henry Bellingham: I declare my interests as recorded in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. We have just heard an extraordinary speech, and I think that all hon. Members greatly respect the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) for his commitment to his city, his constituency and his constituents. Obviously, whatever course of action he takes, we will admire it because he does it in the interests of his constituency.
	Listening to the Prime Minister last week, it seemed incredible that this was the iron Chancellor who 10 years ago proclaimed prudence and thrift and put in place golden rules. It is also difficult to believe that, at the start of the recession, the Chancellor's Budget in March 2008 included a forecast of public borrowing of £38 billion, or 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. He stated then that net debt would remain below 40 per cent. and that it would be at that level till 2013. Fast forward 18 months and the figures are horrendous. The borrowing forecast in the previous Budget was £175 billion- 12.5 per cent. of GDP. That is now likely to go up to £200 billion and beyond. Our national debt is now 60 per cent. of GDP and increasing. It will probably reach 100 per cent. in a year or so. Public borrowing for last month-October-was 88 times the figure for the previous year. The figure of £200 billion that I just mentioned may therefore seem optimistic. All the time, tax revenues are plummeting.
	I am concerned about the interest on our national debt that we are paying now and that we will pay in the years to come. It is currently around 6 per cent. of GDP, but it is likely to reach 10 per cent.-more than £75 billion, which is more than the combined budget for schools and transport. In 1976, national debt as a percentage of GDP was 10 per cent. when the then Chancellor, Denis Healey, went to the International Monetary Fund. Any amount over 10 per cent. means that the debt begins to compound, and most credit rating agencies start to get worried about any figure over 12.5 per cent. because one is then heading into uncharted territory, and there is a genuine problem about funding gilt sales.
	There is an assumption that the debt will be bought and that investors will still have the appetite to continue buying it. I wonder whether they will, because the UK Government alone are planning a record issuance of £220 billion of debt this fiscal year and exactly the same amount in each of the next four years. That means that the total worldwide sovereign debt for next year will reach £9.1 trillion, which is an extraordinary figure. I am concerned that, if UK interest rates go up by even a small amount, we will be in real danger of reaching a debt trap. It is therefore essential that the Government-and, indeed, the next Government-can convince the markets that serious action will take place to address the debt crisis.

Mark Field: In relation to the horrific amount of debt in the global economy, it is not clear where the debt will be mopped up. For example, various sovereign wealth funds in the middle east and the Chinese Government have traditionally been able to take up such debt-but it is estimated that some third to a half of the £9.1 trillion will not be taken up by such areas. In other words, a major problem is likely to arise in the bond markets before the world is too much older.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is much more in touch with these issues than I am, but I certainly share his concerns. The position here is looking grimmer than elsewhere because of the state of our economy. Indeed, apart from Greece, we are the only country in the EU that ran a consistent budget deficit rather than a surplus during those boom years, which means that we are singly ill equipped to deal with this financial crisis and recession. That is, of course, an appalling scar on the Government's record.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) pointed out earlier, the UK's growth between July and September was minus 0.3 per cent. For six consecutive quarters we have been in recession-the longest since records began. That figure for the quarter compares with America's 0.9 per cent. growth and the eurozone's 0.4 per cent. growth. That shows how we are in a very parlous position.
	As the Government rebuild public finances, it is going to be very important to impress on the markets our determination to do so, but I feel very strongly that if we do not take the necessary action and confidence then dissipates, we could be facing a sterling crisis, rising interest rates and perhaps a gilt issuance strike as well.
	Her Majesty's Government have to rebuild the public finances without putting the brakes on demand. That is why even though public expenditure is going to have to be cut back and whoever gets into office after the election will have to think about tax increases, it has to be done in a way that does not stifle the private sector, but allows it to continue to maximise wealth creation. That means more enterprise, more entrepreneurship and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. It must mean lower business taxes, lower business rates and better access to credit, and it must also mean substantially less regulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said a few moments ago, we need another enterprise revolution.
	As I look around my constituency and talk to businesses large and small alike, they tell me that they are not getting access to finance and credit, or the help from the banks that they expected. Indeed, they are not getting the support they need even from the publicly owned banks, the ones owned mainly by UK Financial Investments Ltd. Furthermore, they are very worried about business rates. I received two e-mails over the last couple of days from businesses in my constituency, which explained that the business rates to be paid in the next financial year are going up by 27 per cent.-and that comes on top of a 34 per cent. increase in 2005. The Government must look at the business rate burden on SMEs; they must look at the rate of small firms' corporation tax; and they must look at the regulations being put on business.
	If we are to have any serious supply side reform, the Government must row back from their propensity to put more and more burdens on small businesses. That is why, in an intervention an hour or so ago, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the agency workers directive, which will be a job-destroying directive. Agency workers themselves do not want it and small businesses do not want it, as it is going to add a great deal of cost to small businesses, while those very agency workers that the directive sets out to protect want their independence and flexibility. They do not want a directive. Having said over many months that they would resist that directive and do all they possibly could to stop it going through, the Government are now going to legislate to bring in protection for agency workers to give them the same rights as normal workers. I think that is very bad news indeed.

Chris Mullin: As so often, the hon. Gentleman does not get it right. I am not arguing that. I am just saying that the British Government did quite a lot in bringing this most recent-and particularly large-crisis to a halt, not just in this country, but around the world. Many distinguished foreigners appear to have noticed that, even if the hon. Gentleman and we in this country have not. I was pleased to hear the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), acknowledge that today, as he has done on several previous occasions. That is why he is taken more seriously than the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who speaks for the official Opposition on these matters.
	Let me mention something else I thought while watching that programme. I also thought it at the Institute of Directors dinner last night, at which I had a ringside seat. IOD director general Miles Templeman was demanding less Government interference, of course, and as he was playing on home ground that was greatly welcomed by his audience. In fact, he was asking for many of the same things that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk was just requesting: less Government interference, less red tape, less this and less that, and smaller Government. I thought to myself, "Goodness, it's lucky there was some Government interference around last autumn, when the banks went belly-up. I didn't hear any talk about the need for smaller Government then, when the world economy faced potential ruin."
	Over the years, all the main political parties have indulged to some extent in the pretence that we in this country can have a European level of public services while paying only American levels of taxation. We are all guilty of having encouraged that belief. As a result, when there is an argument about cuts versus tax increases, it is assumed across the board that only cuts will do. Indeed, there was a period a few months ago when the leaders of all three main parties appeared to be vying with each other on cuts. The leader of the Liberal Democrats was, I was shocked to hear, calling for bold and savage cuts at his conference, which cannot have gone down too well with his punters. The leader of the Liberal Democrats is a wide boy and a chancer as far as I am concerned, and if he thinks that is going to get his party any votes, he is wrong. If people want bold and savage cuts, they will vote for the Conservatives, not the Liberal Democrats.
	I think that we do need to contemplate the possibility that, sooner or later, the basic rate of income tax will have to rise-I am not talking about taxing the rich, because that is often a cop-out as it does not raise the necessary sums. The basic rate of income tax has come down consistently over the years. It was 25p in the pound as recently as 1995, but successive Chancellors have reduced it so it now stands at 20p. Sooner or later, a political party in this country will have to confront the electorate with the reality that if we want European levels of public services, we will have to pay European levels of taxation. That cannot just be paid for by the rich; the prosperous-or the relatively prosperous-will have to contribute as well. There may well need to be a rise in the basic rate of income tax, therefore.
	Finally, I want to say a few words about "broken Britain". We have heard quite a lot on that subject from those on the Conservative Benches. Those of us who represent less prosperous areas of the country know a thing or two about broken Britain. When I was first elected to Parliament in 1987, at every single surgery that I held people from the poorer parts of my constituency came to me begging to be evacuated from various notorious estates. All that has stopped over the last five to 10 years. There were parts of my constituency where normal life had broken down to such an extent that we had to evacuate the few remaining residents and demolish entire streets-indeed, in one case, a large part of an entire estate. I fear that there is a danger that we might return to that situation. That is broken Britain.
	Sandhill View school in my constituency is a secondary school. Twelve years ago it was achieving a GCSE result rate on the five A to C grade measure of less than 10 per cent. Today, that rate is more than 50 per cent. The school has been completely rebuilt, it is under completely new management and more than 50 per cent. of the pupils are getting those results, despite the catchment area being the same. So when somebody tells me that nothing has changed and everything is bad and getting worse, I can put my hand on my heart and honestly say that the poorer people in my constituency-I would be surprised if this were confined only to my constituency-are significantly better off as a result of this Government.
	I dread that in future we may go back to where we were in the late '80s, when there was mass unemployment, and a breakdown in the social fabric and in law and order. Some future Government would then have to clear up the mess, as this Government are still doing to some extent. I hope that we will not go down that path again. I am told that a new, merciful and compassionate Conservative party has arisen from the ashes of the greedy and mean Conservative party-I accept that there have been some changes at the top, but I do not believe that down below that is the case. I think that the party has the same philosophy and wants one thing only: tax cuts for the already prosperous.

Lorely Burt: On the face of it, there does not appear to be a great deal for business in this Queen's Speech, so I wish to focus on business. Legislation is not always needed in order to make changes, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) said. I trust that that proves so and that having introduced a plethora of measures, some of which have worked and some of which spectacularly have not, the Government are not resting on their laurels, thinking that we are through the worst and that everything will be all right. If the measures that they have announced had been properly implemented, business would not be suffering in the same way as it is now.
	Recent talk about recovery is encouraging, but we must be realistic and recognise that businesses are still suffering and our gross domestic product is still falling, with the third quarter figure showing the decline slowing to 0.3 per cent. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) cited a figure of 0.4 per cent. but I believe a revision was made yesterday-either way, the situation is bad and GDP is still declining. The level of bank lending to businesses continues to decline, with third quarter lending decreasing by £23.2 billion. The level of unemployment is still increasing, with the figure now at more than 2.5 million. Manufacturing investment has decreased by more than a quarter and construction investment has decreased by almost a third.
	Despite all that, an array of business support is due to end before the recovery has been secured: the trade credit insurance top-up scheme ends on 31 December 2009, just when it might have become useful as the credit insurance market stabilises; the vehicle scrappage scheme ends in February 2010-or earlier if the Government funding is used up; the enterprise finance guarantee scheme ends on 31 March 2010; an extension on empty property rate relief ends on 1 April 2010; and first-year capital allowances of 40 per cent. end in April 2010, when we understand they will return to 20 per cent.
	Although we have heard various noises from the Government about extending these schemes, no clarity has been provided. They have left it late before explaining their plans, which has left businesses with little time to prepare. The worst thing that we can do to businesses is leave them in a state of uncertainty. How can they make provisions when they have no idea of what is coming? Can the Minister tell business today which of the schemes are to be extended? The Chancellor has said "no", but he is not serving the interests of businesses by making them wait until the pre-Budget report. Despite the endless announcements about help for business, some Government actions are holding business back. Businesses face an overnight increase in business rates of up to 12.5 per cent. from April. That is a significant cost, especially for small businesses. Empty property rate relief is due to be withdrawn on the same date, encouraging unnecessary demolitions and destroying the capacity of the economy to grow in the future.
	We have long said that fundamental reform of business rates is required to make them more equitable. Let us take the timing of the VAT increase as an example. Despite modest, well-argued representations from business, the Government refuse to change the timing of the VAT increase from midnight on 31 December. The Federation of Small Businesses has called for it to be deferred to 1 February to avoid the peak January sales-a sensible measure, but one that the Government are ignoring. What a happy new year message that will be to retailers.
	Another example is an increase in the burden of tax. The small companies tax rate is due to increase from 21 to 22 per cent. In last year's pre-Budget report, even the Government realised the counter-productive effect of that change and deferred it from last April to next April. I hope that they will reconsider this ill-timed additional burden on small companies and that the Minister will comment on that.
	I want to see a new sense of urgency in the Government, with fewer announcements and more action. The sense of urgency among businesses is palpable as they struggle to stay afloat. I do not want to be unfair-some of the Government schemes have worked, although some have not. One that has worked relatively well is the enterprise finance guarantee scheme. Will the Minister confirm what will happen to that scheme?
	One scheme that has not worked is the automotive assistance scheme. Guarantees of only £400 million have been promised, compared with £2.3 billion of ostensibly available guarantees. For six months of this year, no money was forthcoming but 10,000 jobs in the automotive industry were lost. Jaguar Land Rover, in my constituency, finally decided after months of being messed around by officials that the game was not worth the candle and got financial help elsewhere. Will this scheme be quietly forgotten now? Will the Minister respond on that point, please?
	The trade credit insurance scheme was most welcome when it was announced, but it has been an absolute disaster. Although the Government said that they expected a £3 billion take-up by October, only £13 million has been allocated. The conditions have been far too restrictive. Will the Government consider relaxing the criteria so that struggling companies can benefit or will they quietly forget that scheme, too?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. It is of course true that the problems were precipitated by only a small proportion of total banking staff, and that many of them, as he says, were involved in proprietary trading. However, the financial sector is incredibly important to the whole economy, and the fact that it cannot be-and was not-managed properly by directors in the boardroom is something that desperately needs to be addressed. I do not think that the measures in the Financial Services Bill-or, as I am about to make clear, any of the reforms that have been suggested so far-are adequate in that regard.
	The Government's policy on the banks seems to consist of only three elements. The first is to limit bonuses, although I think that I am right in saying that the FSA already has the authority to intervene in that area. The second element is to increase regulation but-and I say this with great respect-we will judge the effectiveness of that approach when we see it. The third element is to introduce some increase in capital ratios. I think that everyone agrees that that is necessary, but by exactly how much will they be increased? That is the key question, and the answer has not yet been specified. However, the Government's policy still leaves the City as dominant as it is now, and the rest of the real economy hobbled and dependent.
	If I understand it correctly, the policy of the Opposition is very little different. They are proposing living wills, by which the banks can wind themselves down in the event of a collapse, higher capital reserves-exactly like the Government-and more support for long-term equity finance, although again they have not said exactly how they would bring that about. I do not disagree, but it, too, is minimalist reform. I do not want to be over-partisan, but given the Tory party's dependence for major donations on City institutions and on the British Bankers Association, whose chief executive is a former Tory MP, and given that both those institutions have no wish for radical change, we are entitled to wonder how much even those modest reforms are likely to see the light of day.
	The truth is that the original financial crisis flowed from several causes other than the monstrous bonuses that generated thoroughly irresponsible banking practice. Such factors include mammoth bank size-beyond the capability of any reasonable manager to control-a dangerous confusion of retail and investment banking roles, excessive debt leveraging prompted by over-cheap money, global proliferation of toxic derivatives, the suborning of credit-rating institutions by banks and other bodies whose creditworthiness they were supposed to be assessing, and an orgy of offshore speculation and tax evasion taking preference over industrial investment and the real economy. None of those fault lines is being addressed.
	All the big four remain-to use the customary phrase-too big to fail, not least RBS, which at the time of the collapse had an exposure level 12 times the entire UK gross domestic product. Even with EU intervention, the bank is still far too large. The only dent in that behemoth structure was brought about by the EU Competition Commissioner.
	The Treasury consistently-I think wrongly-refuses to consider the separation of retail from investment banking, no doubt partly because of heavy lobbying from the City of London. The effect is that it still leaves the taxpayer as the ultimate bailer-out of last resort for grossly irresponsible banking practices, some of which are already beginning to revive.

Michael Meacher: I completely agree. That is the single biggest deficiency in the reform programme.
	Fundamental reform is needed, not tinkering. No action is being taken in respect of the shadow banking system, which is driven by the investment banks, trading funds, hedge funds and private equity. They are too big, too powerful and too risky. No action is being taken to address the finance sector, which is too large for a country the size of the UK and is still crowding out industrial and manufacturing investment. No action is being taken to reform the financial architecture-to dynamise innovation and long-term productive investment rather than simply continuing to concentrate on mortgages and consumer credit.
	Above all, nothing is being done to regulate closely, or in some cases even prohibit, the derivative trading that lies at the dark heart of finance market fundamentalism. There is no action even to require that new derivatives should be approved by a sanctioning authority, which, considering that the massive toxic market in credit default swaps and collateralised debt obligations nearly brought down the entire global system, one would have thought was the absolute minimum regulatory requirement. Little or nothing is being done about offshore speculation, unless of course we have a Tobin tax, which could be operated domestically through the UK CHAPS system. If that saw the light of day, it would be an important and valued reform, so I hope the Government will proceed as fast as they can.
	No action is being taken to introduce greater competition in the financial sector, which is still frankly too large, even after intervention from the EU. Surely what is needed if we are to have real competition is the breaking-up of the over-dominant big four by, say, a dozen banks, all with particular specialisms. Those specialisms might include infrastructure-that, of course, is what the CBI wants-and should certainly include science and technology research and development, investment in small and medium-sized businesses, and other institution building in the real economy.
	Quite simply, the banks are out of control. It is not the state that has taken over the banks, but the banks that have taken over the state. The taxpayer has bailed out the Royal Bank of Scotland to the value of 84 per cent. of its equity, yet the Government have no involvement in the running of the company, even as regards the insistence that there should be an increase in lending to business. The Chancellor keeps intoning-he has done so to me on a few occasions-that the Government believe that the banks are best managed in the private sector, but how does he reconcile that with the fact that those same private banks are the main cause of the financial crisis? How does he reconcile that with the view recently expressed by the Minister with responsibility for banking, Lord Myners, that before the crash, RBS was, in his exact words,
	"the worst managed...bank this country has ever seen"?
	How have the banks been allowed to get away with being given gargantuan sums on the specific condition that they continued lending to home owners and businesses at 2007 levels, when the latest M4 figures-the relevant money supply figures-show that bank lending to businesses is now actually negative? In other words, banks are clawing back more money from businesses than they are lending to them.
	As has been said, only today we learn that banks are to be allowed to impose whatever overdraft charges they like on their customers with impunity, so that they can use the money to subsidise more profitable services for their richer clients. We learn that in his report on bankers' pay, Sir David Walker-a former Morgan Stanley grandee, and a soft touch for the City if ever there was one-resists the obvious public demand to cap bonuses. He merely proposes disclosing the numbers, but not even the names, of bankers on more than £1 million-the feeblest option on the table.
	We learn that Lord Myners is exasperated at the City's unwillingness to agree to change. When did the Government last expect that they need only wag their finger at the malefactors for the predators in the temple of Mammon to doff their caps, say sorry and promptly mend their ways? Oh, come on! As McEnroe would say, "You cannot be serious." When will the Government accept that voluntary exhortation is completely inadequate? To cap it all, £62 billion of our money was handed over to RBS and HBOS covertly a year ago. The motive was certainly not to prevent another bank run; it was to avoid the public's confidence in the banking system as a whole being shaken by revelation of the sheer scale of its failings and corruption. There is something deeply rotten in the City of London, and until that is clearly and fully dealt with, this country will not be free of the risk of a bigger, further financial collapse.

David Simpson: It has been said today that we are in this together. Some Members might not be happy with that comment, but I happen to believe that it is true. Whether we are elected from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, the general public have sent us here to do a job for them. Those who have listened to the programme set out today will be interested only in hearing what the House will do for the United Kingdom, for business, or for the people in business.
	Having said all that, we are, of course, enduring a financial and economic storm. The economy must therefore be kept centre stage. For that reason, I welcome the opening words of Her Majesty's Queen Speech:
	"my Government's overriding priority is to ensure sustained growth to deliver a fair and prosperous economy for families and businesses as the British economy recovers from the global economic downturn."
	A sound and secure business foundation is vital to that.
	We might be seeing the first, fragile signs of a recovery, but it is early days, and the extent of the recovery is a matter of debate, with almost as many theories as there are so-called experts. However, we need to assess the damage that has been done to our finances and economy and determine where we go from there. Although we wish to see growth, we must guard against artificial, unsustainable growth. The Republic of Ireland illustrates the point. Aided by European funding, its economy surged ahead as the Celtic tiger, but that growth was largely false, and we now see the affects of the recession in the Irish Republic; it is almost bankrupt.
	Growth must be sustainable and built on solid foundations. We must grow a dynamic and innovative economy that ensures a well qualified and properly qualified work force. We should do everything possible to reduce the burdens on business and move away from a culture of bureaucracy and red tape, which stifles business and, especially, the small-business economy. Rather than stifling the incentives to engage in research and development, to concentrate on exports and to be innovative, flexible and inventive, we must encourage such activity.
	My party leader and First Minister of Northern Ireland recently said that
	"the real drivers behind the economy are not the politicians nor civil servants but those entrepreneurs who are prepared to take a risk and start a business. It is their drive and innovation that will make the difference. We in government need only give them the chance and then let them get on with it as unhindered as possible."
	Her Majesty also referred to
	"active employment and training programmes."
	High unemployment will be the lasting scar of this recession, and we are told that unemployment numbers could reach as high as 3.3 million by the end of 2010. Therefore, training programmes must be geared towards robustly tackling the issue. Schools and universities must play their part by giving realistic career advice to pupils at an early stage of their education. We churn out too many graduates with no useful purpose in the workplace. That leaves too many young people unemployed and almost unemployable, but we must not forget our existing work force. Companies must ensure that they develop corporate and individual skills, and they must think strategically and invest much more in research and development. We can attract high value-added jobs to the UK if we show that our people have the necessary skills and competences.
	I shall turn to another area of concern, the financial sector and the need for reform. Owing to the fact that the financial sector is a crucial cornerstone of a free economy, the Government bailed out the banks at taxpayers' expense, but, as taxpayers now have a stake in the banks, it beggars belief that some elements of the sector have resorted to type and begun lining their own pockets again. They seem to have forgotten that they owe a debt to the public, whose taxes helped bail them out of trouble. We understand that banks need to be prudent on lending, but too often they seem reluctant to help sound businesses that, in many cases, have been banking with them for generations.
	I know from constituents that some banks, far from offering support, actually make life harder. That is outrageous. The banks owe us all a debt-not a toxic debt but a genuine debt-of gratitude. Just because some of them played fast and loose in the past, that does not mean that they should now sit on their hands and fail to support genuine businesses.
	I say this to the Government: despite what the banks are saying publicly and perhaps privately to the Government, things are not happening on the ground. Businesses are being strangled because of the attitudes of the banks. A small, family business in my constituency that employs 50 people contacted me in February this year to see whether I could get it some breathing space with the banks. I rang the bank, and someone said, "Well, there're two sides to every story." However, we managed to get the company some breathing space. It is still going strong and has just employed another 10 people, but if the bank had its way in February, the company would have gone. That is one story, but many in the House could tell stories like it. What the banks are doing to businesses is unacceptable.
	We must remove bureaucracy and red tape, and anything that will hinder the small business. I remember speaking to Michael Gallagher of the US State Department about business. I referred to the large companies that they have in the United States and he stopped me and said, "Look, David, it's like this: our backbone-the backbone of the United States-is the small to middle-sized indigenous businesses, which have existed for many, many years." It is exactly the same in the United Kingdom. The small, indigenous businesses are the backbone of this great United Kingdom that we cherish, and we need to support them.
	Large companies come in, and quite rightly so, and create large employment opportunities. They get millions of pounds in Government assistance. When they come to this country, as we have seen in Northern Ireland, they may last 10 or 15 years, but all of a sudden they leave for some other country where the labour force and costs are a lot cheaper.

Anne McGuire: Before I get into my own remarks, I should like to pick up on one or two comments made by previous contributors, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). He spoke about the international global situation and the fact that there is an attempt to caricature this financial crisis as Labour's crisis or mess, or whatever word from whatever crib sheet Opposition Members happen to be using. It is unfortunate that that caricature is being used on such a serious issue, because the reality is that the financial decision that had to be made last year was probably the biggest that ever had to be made in international global finance. It was this Prime Minister and Chancellor who made that decision and called it right. It does no one any great credit to try to undermine that.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) made great play of the claim that this is the deepest recession since records began and that somehow all the ills that we face today are the fault of this Government. However, there is an inherent contradiction in his argument. If this is the deepest recession since records began, we need to challenge the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Conservative party to tell us why we do not have the levels of unemployment that we had during the lesser recessions that they managed; why we do not have the levels of interest rates that we had in those previous recessions; and why we still have more people in employment today than in those recessions. There are a lot of myths floating around the Chamber.
	There is also a lot of agreement about some aspects of the situation. Back in March, when I last had the opportunity to speak about the economy, I raised the issue of the importance of small and medium enterprises, much as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) has just done-and I apologise for not paying the usual courtesy in recognising that I follow him. In my earlier speech, I examined how the downturn was affecting SMEs in my constituency and across the country. At the time, those SMEs were running out of credit. That was their major and basic problem. As we all know, SMEs have little room to manoeuvre when the going gets tough. Some of them faced then-and still do-serious cash flow difficulties, and credit is the oxygen on which those firms survive.
	Eight months later, how are we doing? I have to tell Ministers that it is still a very mixed picture. The Scottish Federation of Small Businesses recently gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee about the state of SMEs in Scotland. Some 30 per cent. of businesses consistently report an increase in the cost of existing credit, 22 per cent. reported increased fees for new loans and overdrafts, and more than 30 per cent. have said that their banks have been less than helpful. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is now a little easier to get funding, but the fees charged are increasing dramatically.
	Of most concern are the reports from small businesses that banks are finding new ways to charge. Entrepreneurial skills are being brought into the banks again and firms are facing increased fees simply for maintaining existing overdrafts. Larger arrangement fees are being charged, and maintenance fees are even being charged for unused overdrafts-so firms are being charged for not borrowing. Nor is there any room for negotiation.
	I have been following the progress of some firms in Stirling that have contacted me about the difficulties that they have experienced. In March I mentioned the case of a constituent who runs a small commercial property business. He had banked with the Bank of Scotland in its various manifestations for nearly quarter of a century. HBOS had slashed his overdraft facility and increased the charges levied on it. Eight months on, matters have not improved. Without that overdraft facility, he cannot pay his staff through to the beginning of next year.
	I mentioned another constituent who had an import-export business that had held strong for 30 years. To the credit of the Royal Bank of Scotland, it phoned me the next day and asked for details, but it should not have taken an MP raising the issue in the House of Commons for RBS or any other bank to intervene in that way. However, in that case, sadly, it was too late because the bank had already withdrawn the facilities.
	I do not want to encourage frivolous lending-we do not want to get back to that situation-and I certainly do not want to second-guess the commercial decisions that have to be made. As I am sure the hon. Member for Upper Bann will accept, there are often two sides to the story. However, finance needs to be rigorous, not flexible. The Government have put in place a programme of supportive and positive measures, which I welcome, but more pressure needs to be brought to bear on the banks, particularly those in which we own a controlling stake, to help small businesses by reducing lending charges.
	We should not underestimate how much importance people put on the fact that they now have a stake in these banks. The other night, on my way home, when I paid the taxi driver I handed over a Scottish £20 note. Members who have ever tried to do that in London will know that it is sometimes quite difficult.

Anne McGuire: In the case of the Bank of Ireland Northern Ireland it might be even more difficult. The taxi driver took my £20 and said, "I own part of this bank." We should remember that people are making a correlation between their stake in these banks as a taxpayer and what they expect back from the banks.
	Is there is scope to consider some of these issues in the Financial Services Bill? I feel very strongly that we need to make it easier for customers to seek redress if they believe that their bank has not treated them fairly. I have a constituent whose bank did not want to meet him, although he had been a customer for 40 years. Again, it took my intervention, not only to get the meeting but to allow it to facilitate a situation that allowed him to continue in business. I can see that some colleagues recognise that scenario.
	Of course, I have welcomed the wide range of measures that have been implemented to help companies.

Anne McGuire: I do not think that the Government got it wrong. It is an easy hit to say that it is a Government problem. The banks are part of the partnership with Government. It is not my right hon. Friend the Minister who is sitting in the bank manager's office saying, "Sorry, you can't have the loan." We have put in place the programmes and we need to ensure that they are being delivered through the banking system. There is a whole range of measures, including the Scottish business gateway, the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, the VAT reduction, and tax payment deferrals. I have lost count of the businesses that have complimented the Government on how HMRC is relating to them.
	In some instances, local businesses in Scotland-I am not making a criticism of any particular aspect of Government-are finding it difficult to access information. I ask Ministers to ensure that there is maximum co-operation between Westminster, through the Secretary of State, and the First Minister and the Finance Secretary in the Scottish Government to ensure that businesses are getting the information they need, when they need it.
	Another issue that was raised by the Scottish FSB is the consolidation of banking between the two great big monoliths. It said that about 78 per cent. of business in Scotland is being conducted through those monoliths. I welcomed the Chancellor's statement earlier this month calling for more competition in the marketplace; that will make a significant difference.
	Finally, I welcome the decisive action taken by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, who have guided us through unprecedented global financial crisis. They took difficult decisions when they needed to be taken, and they remained calm in the face of a financial tsunami, unlike some other political parties, which did not know from one day to the next what their position was. However, I hope that my colleagues recognise that there is still more to be done. The SME sector did not get us into this financial crisis, but it will be crucial to getting us out of it.

Angela Watkinson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who was particularly helpful to me with a constituency case when she was a Work and Pensions Minister.
	I wish to focus my contribution on child poverty. A Child Poverty Bill was, of course, announced in the Gracious Speech, but the subject also impinges to an extent on the Bill on improving schools and safeguarding children. Child poverty has risen for the third year in a row, and there are now 4 million children living in poverty, a rise of 100,000 since last year.
	The Child Poverty Bill defines child poverty in four ways and sets out worthy targets. There is a target of 10 per cent. of children living in relative low-income poverty by 2020, which means households with less than 60 per cent. of the median income. There is another target of 5 per cent. of children living in combined material deprivation and low-income poverty, which means households with less than 70 per cent. of the median income. There is persistent poverty, defined as children living in relative poverty for three out of four years, and finally absolute low income.
	Those measures all relate to a family's financial circumstances, and I believe that there is a fifth category of child poverty, which is cultural and emotional poverty. That can hamper a child's education and future employment prospects just as much as financial deprivation, if not more in some cases. In an ideal world, parents give priority to the welfare and development of their children. They give them a sense of security, love them demonstrably and share family meals and conversation. They take a close interest in their children's education, read and listen to them and provide interesting experiences. They encourage hobbies, sport, clubs and playing musical instruments, and importantly, they set standards and values by example.
	Sadly, a minority of parents fail their children in that respect. It might be the result of drink or drug habits, but sometimes it is simply because of the absence of instinctive parenting skills. An unhappy childhood can sometimes lead to neglectful parenting. A bad experience at school can mean that parents may not know how to help their own children with their homework, or even be motivated to ensure that they attend school regularly. Such parents are also least likely to become involved in school activities, join the parent teacher association or help at the fête and thereby make an important link between school and home. Their children are least likely to belong to a scout or guide troop, the Boys' Brigade or Girls' Brigade, an armed forces cadet corps, sports teams, choirs, drama groups, youth clubs or a church.
	Those children experience child poverty of a special kind, because they miss the sense of belonging that flows from such life-enriching activities. They miss out on belonging to a team, being reliable and being able to rely on others, acquiring social and interpersonal skills, and trying their best and being appreciated for it. They do not learn to win and lose with good grace, which is an important life skill. Many of those learning activities are well disguised as having fun, but they are learned nevertheless.
	Each of our lives could be viewed as a Venn diagram, with the overlapping circles representing all the "belonging" components. Most of us would belong in any number of shared spaces-family, personal friends, acquaintances, work colleagues, clubs and hobbies, the place where we live, our religion-and our sense of belonging and purpose come from those shared values and experiences. The absence of them creates a void readily filled by membership of a street gang of similarly impoverished young people and all the associated dangers that that can bring. We have seen many tragic consequences of so-called feral youths who, feeling that they do not belong anywhere or that nobody is particularly interested in them, develop misplaced loyalty to a charismatic or manipulative gang leader with values wholly unacceptable to the rest of the community, such as carrying knives and just being at odds with the rest of their world.
	I pay particular tribute to the invaluable work done by Barnardo's in identifying the minority of children and young people at risk of becoming involved in criminal and antisocial behaviour. Barnardo's supports these children and their families, addressing their individual concerns and sticking with them to break the cycle-benefiting them, their communities and society as a whole.
	The child poverty resulting from inadequate parenting is demonstrated in children's lack of self-esteem and confidence, under-achievement at school and lack of aspiration and ambition for a more fulfilling and productive life. It is not necessarily the exclusive province of families in financial poverty. Well-off parents sometimes use over-generous pocket money and a lack of supervision as an easy way out. Such indulgence and lack of behavioural boundaries can also lead to the same cultural and emotional poverty and the feeling that nobody really cares what they do or where they go.
	These children belong-I use the term deliberately, because we do not want them to separate themselves from the rest of society-to the next generation of adults, and they should be prepared with the social and practical skills to enable them to take their place in the adult world, to find gainful employment and to be a part of the future of our country. It is up to us to prevent them from slipping through the net.
	The Children's Society goes further and asks for a clear legal definition of parental responsibility, not just in education, but in safeguarding and promoting the child's health, development and welfare. I have not mentioned that to any barristers I know, but I imagine that it would be difficult to define such things in law because they are subjective and even more difficult to enforce. However, the principle is a good one, and if it could be considered, and a way found, without intruding on the privacy of the vast majority of families who manage their affairs perfectly well, we ought to think about it.
	The importance of parental responsibility cannot be overestimated, and for children not benefiting from good parenting, we must find ways of making as many opportunities as possible available to them. For example, public libraries are an amazing source of entertainment and information. A good book can transport a child into another world, enchant, horrify, amuse or broaden the horizons of the mind. Our libraries are free of charge-no child living in poverty need be deprived of the wonder of books or the opportunity to develop knowledge, vocabulary and spelling through the enjoyment of reading.
	I know that our schools already have huge expectations placed on them, but perhaps librarians could be invited into schools to promote book borrowing, reading clubs and other library activities among families where books are not important. Even the simple possession of a library ticket can give a child a sense of belonging-of being part of something. Similarly, leaders of young people's uniformed organisations might also be invited in to talk about their activities, or even to start a group on school premises to attract children previously excluded. Police community support officers, youth offending teams and youth outreach workers could also play a part in getting excluded children involved.
	The Bill on improving schools and safeguarding children contains some promising elements, including on clarifying parents' responsibilities in their children's education. All community groups have so much to offer to children in overcoming cultural and emotional poverty. Our challenge is to make those connections. If we do not, however much progress is made towards meeting the four targets in the Child Poverty Bill, the fifth category of child poverty that I mentioned will remain. The bills of social failure, to which my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor referred in his introductory speech, will be high indeed.

Doug Henderson: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
	About three hours ago, I listened to the opening speeches from both Front Benches. At that time, I intended to say something, if I caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, about a constituency issue that relates to flooding and the resources required for that. I still hope to talk about that and some labour market issues. However, having been provoked approximately three hours ago, I would not do myself justice if I did not allow myself the opportunity to respond a little to the provocation.
	Opposition parties must oppose, but when countries are in crisis, as we clearly were less than 15 months ago, political parties have a responsibility to look after the nation's interest first and other considerations, whether party or even constituency considerations, second. There is much evidence in British history of that happening. I will not try to identify examples; I think we all know them. When I first became a Member of Parliament more than 20 years ago, there were many occasions on which issues were considered to be in the national interest and colleagues took stances based on that.
	The Conservative party did itself a disservice in October last year by not recognising a national crisis that needed a national response and a national solution. The whole world said-broadly speaking; I use shorthand-that the proposals of the Prime Minister of Britain to the international economic forums and the actions that those forums and the main countries associated with them, including European Union countries, Japan, China, India, the United States, took constituted the right policy position. If the Conservatives had accepted that at the time, they would not now be in a position whereby, having opposed what seemed eminently sensible to the rest of the world, they are picking at the aftermath to try to find differences with the Government. I essentially accuse the Conservative party of a political response to an economic crisis. The Conservative party is now in the position of arguing that, because of x, y and z, it would be capable, should it be in government, of paying back more debt more quickly than the Government, should they be re-elected. That is economic nonsense.
	As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, growth rates in this country tend, broadly speaking, to be secular. I do not believe that Governments can do a lot to improve a country's growth rate-perhaps a little bit here and there. However, they can do a lot of damage in undermining the secular growth rate at a particular point. Again, there is much evidence that Conservative party policy-I do not blame current Conservative Members-did that in the early 1980s. We know the consequences for many communities throughout our country. That was repeated in the 1990s, albeit not with the same devastating consequences. However, they were still pretty devastating.
	The danger is, were a Conservative Government elected, and they carried out the commitment made in opposition for political reasons as the economic policy of the country, it would at the very least damage our ability to recover from the current position. It would arguably cause further deep and serious damage. I urge the Conservative party to try to think a little more in the national interest.
	Having got that off my chest to some extent, I greatly welcome the Bill to control flooding. We do not have time to go into it in detail-there may be another opportunity for that, should it get a Second Reading. There is a need to change the structures that deal with flooding. I have had flooding in my constituency and I ended up co-ordinating the activities of the Environment Agency, the local authority, the water company, social services and several other people. That, however, is not really the role of an MP; an MP's role is to have an interest in it and to know what is going on. A lead agency should be made responsible for it, but I do not think that there is one. All the agencies are trying to do everything, so there is a need for some structural change. We await the detail in the Bill.
	Secondly, resources will be required to tackle whatever recommendations are put forward in any particular part of the country. Our planning regulations need to be looked at as well. The House may well have considered this on another day, but people who think they can simply stick concrete or tarmac anywhere they want as part of a development really have to be stopped. There needs to be a much more considered environmental approach to these matters, so that at least some of the territory where the development is taking place has a porous surface that will allow rainwater to drain in a more natural way. We rarely see serious flooding, apart from river floods, in the middle of fields; we now see a lot of it in urban areas because of the inability of our drainage systems to take the water away. I look forward to this important Flood and Water Management Bill. Especially after last week's events in Cumbria, I hope the House will reach a consensus and allow the Bill to become law before the end of this Parliament.
	Thirdly-I will also have to try to find more time for this on another occasion-I am vice-chairman of the Council of Europe Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population. We deal with demographic issues as they arise-basically in the world, albeit in their relation to Europe. We look at asylum, refugees and all those things. In the Queen's Speech, the Government rightly identify training as an important issue. Some people might ask about the link between that and migration. I believe that the political world has to start raising the importance of that link. We have got to stop talking about migration and immigration as burdens that have to be shared among European countries. Migrants make enormous contributions to our economic way of life in this country and throughout Europe. We have got to start recognising that. Figures given to the Davos conference in 2008 showed that there will be massive changes throughout Europe in the proportion of the population that is over 65. It will be a much bigger proportion- 10 per cent. more at the moment; about 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. more in the future.
	Conversely, there will be a dramatic reduction in the proportion of young 18 to 30-year-olds. I know that the British Army is looking at future recruitment patterns and wondering where it is going to get enough young people to join it in the necessary cohort. The answer is either that it will have to recruit them from somewhere else or that we will have to cut the size of the Army. A lot of employers are looking at the same issue and trying to find ways to recruit in the future. The political world has to take a lead in this and say, "Yes, we need migration." I believe that managed migration is what we need. I know that no specific provision has been made for this in the Queen's Speech, but some background speeches have been made to illustrate the Government's position.
	The Government are in the right territory on this: the points system is fine, but I think there also needs to be a more frequent review of the points within every category so that the system responds to labour-market conditions more flexibly than at the moment. I would like to have seen something to deal with that in the relevant Bill, but it is not in it.
	Let me explain the link to training. If we allow so many of our young people-I know many students cannot get work at the moment and the Government have some plans to deal with it-to believe that we are not doing enough to help them to get work and that we are relying on migrants, we will create the conditions for deeper social conflict in the years ahead when we will really need those migrants. We need more active training schemes in order to help people-including some in parts of my constituency whose families have not been in work for generations-back into work. It is crucial that at the same time as we meet some of our labour demands from migrants-we will need to do so-we also bring into work people from communities where they have not worked in the more recent past. We need to combine those two aspects in our plans to meet labour demands over the next 25 years or so. We need to start now; we cannot start doing this 10 years down the line when the shortages are critical. I know that the Government have their minds on this and I hope that they will concentrate them a little more. If the Queen's Speech helps them to do that, it will certainly have my support.

Stewart Hosie: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and to speak in this debate, although I suspect that the measures announced in the Queen's speech will play second fiddle to many of those announced in the pre-Budget report and the Budget next spring. At that point, at least the Chancellor will be forced to describe, in more detail, the public finances and our economic condition, which he failed to do today.
	We know that our deficit is at least £175 billion, or 12.4 per cent. of GDP. That is forecast to fall, based on what were considered very optimistic growth figures, to 5.5 per cent. of GDP by 2013-14. That will still be more than twice the level of the pre-crash deficit rate of 2.4 per cent. in 2007-08. On the treaty calculation, the national debt is forecast to hit £1.6 trillion in 2013-14, which will be £60,000 per household.
	As appalling as those figures are, they might yet be wide of the mark, given that they were based on what were considered to be, putting it gently, heroically optimistic growth forecasts. That is not least because this recession is already longer and in many ways deeper than the two Tory recessions of the 1980s and 1990s, of which I have personal memories-they were not pleasant experiences. Both those recessions lasted for five quarters, while this one has already lasted for six quarters, and their GDP declines were 4.7 and 2.5 per cent. respectively, while this recession's GDP decline has already hit 5.9 per cent. It is inconceivable that it will take any less time to return to pre-recession GDP levels than the two full years that it took, in both cases, after the crashes of 1980-81 and 1990-91.
	The tragedy of the recession is that unemployment and youth unemployment are higher today than under the Tories in 1997, just before Labour came to power. Between March and May 1997, all unemployment stood at 7 per cent., compared with 8.1 per cent. today, and youth unemployment was at 12.5 per cent., compared with 18.6 per cent. today. Under Labour, 943,000 young people are now on the dole. That is bad enough, but the real killer is that in both previous recessions unemployment kept rising when the recessions technically ended: for three full years in the case of the 1980-81 recession, and for two full years in the case of the 1990-91 recession. Therefore, things could get much worse.
	The Government's response to that, at least in the Queen's Speech, has been precisely nothing. On economic matters, they have suggested a Financial Services Bill and a fiscal responsibility Bill. The Financial Services Bill would introduce powers over contracts and bonuses, powers to allow class actions, and powers to act on short selling, which are all to be welcomed. Removing the incentive to take too many risks is sensible, as is establishing a council for financial stability to consider emerging risks. However, the Bank of England already produces a financial stability report, so the creation of a new body is less important than how its members analyse the data and measure the risk, and whether they feel that they have the authority and ability to stop risky activities that lead to the systemic problems seen in the banking crisis. In that, the Financial Services Bill is sorely lacking.
	Back in 2000, I think, the financial stability report included a detailed description of the south-east Asian banking crisis, and set out all the factors that led to the problems: easy credit, over-reliance on income from property and so on. By the time we got the 2007 Bank of England report, many of those factors were in existence. The Bank of England glossed over them, and said that the risk had been spread and that everything was fine. The risk had not been spread; the risk was everywhere, and no one had confidence in any of the assets held by the banks. That was a huge part of the problem that stopped the banks lending to each other.
	On banking reform more generally, in the "Reforming financial markets" White Paper in June, the Government spoke about action to enhance the robustness and functioning of key derivatives markets. However, as I think I said at the time, that amounted to no more than a road map to improvements, support for international efforts and the principle of transparency. The new Financial Services Bill does not even build on those statements.
	There is no timeline at all for the creation of a regime properly to minimise the systemic risk of these weapons of financial mass destruction. The details of the fiscal responsibility Bill, to be announced in the pre-Budget report, may give us a little more, but all that has been announced so far is a pledge to halve the deficit over four years. Given the Red Book's forecast of a £173 billion deficit next year and a deficit of £97 billion in four years' time, in cash terms the Government will need to find an extra £11 billion worth of cuts over the next four years. In terms of percentage of GDP, a fall from 12.4 per cent. to 5.5 per cent. would mean that they were almost there, but those figures are based on growth forecasts, which were pretty much knocked out of the park last year.
	Government consumption has been the main element supporting demand in the economy. It is 2.2 per cent. higher now than it was a year ago. Household consumption has fallen by 3.6 per cent., business investment by 20 per cent., and gross fixed capital formation by 17 per cent. If we strip out what has been keeping the economy afloat at this point-as we go into what is only a gentle recovery-we will risk dipping the economy back into recession, or causing a double-dip recession. The real challenge is to stimulate the economy, get people back to work, reduce social protection costs, increase revenue yield and, after that, tackle the deficit and the debt.
	Then there is unemployment. What the recession has laid bare, and what none of the measures in the Queen's Speech will address, is the difficulty of creating jobs in what has become a wholly unbalanced economy. We have become far too dependent on the tax and jobs created by the growth in financial services, to the detriment of traditional employment. There has been a 40 per cent. fall in manufacturing employment over 30 years, and at least 1 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since Labour came to power. Less than 10 per cent. of the work force are now employed in wealth-creating manufacturing. Even with sterling down against the dollar and the euro, between 2007 and the beginning of 2009 the United Kingdom had a balance-of-payments deficit of £93 billion in the trade in goods, and a total balance-of-trade deficit that suppressed GDP growth by 1.6 per cent. That is wholly unsustainable. We need to find a strategy that does not rely wholly on tax and jobs for financial services, but creates wealth and gets people back to work.
	These are the lessons that I hope the Government will incorporate in the Bills announced in the Queen's Speech and in the pre-Budget report. First, the proposed deep and savage cuts in public investment are wrong. The Government should re-profile capital expenditure for a further year to protect recovery. Secondly, there must be a real focus on rebalancing the economy to create new and sustainable manufacturing jobs. Thirdly, as well as doing their important work on bank bonuses and contracts, the Government need to address the difficult issues of derivatives, securitisation and counter-party risk, so that they can deal with the real systemic problems that caused the banking crisis rather than merely tinkering around the edges.
	I thought that Labour had given up on the "We are investing while everyone else is cutting" argument because that is patently untrue, as is clear from the real-terms cut in the Scottish Government budget delivered by the Labour party in Government in London. It was massively disappointing to hear the Chancellor return to the old rhetoric. There will be no credibility in anything that this Government do, good or bad, if they persist with the "We are investing and other people are not" line, because objective reality tells us that London Labour Government budget cuts are driving cuts in every spending Department, every council and every devolved Administration in the country.

Jim Cunningham: I was a little disappointed while listening to the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), outline how he would approach the current economic difficulties. Eighteen months or so ago, the Opposition's main argument was not to do with the economy; their theme then was that Britain was a broken society. Since then they have abandoned that, however, and they are now instead trying to suggest there was no international banking crisis, but that the difficulties were all down to the Labour Government, even though most people know that to be untrue. The current economic difficulties are different from the difficulties of the '80s; the current situation is an international crisis, whereas in the '80s it took place in this country and was Government-made. That is the fundamental difference, and it is one of the reasons why the current economic crisis is also a lot deeper.
	I can certainly remember the '80s, and it is worth while all of us remembering them. I have a manufacturing background, and in the '80s under the previous Government manufacturing was almost entirely massacred, certainly in the west midlands. We need only recall what happened to the car industry-what happened to all the car companies that were household names not only in our country, but internationally, and the small businesses that relied on them for their trade. There were some problems with Rolls-Royce, too. All that happened under the previous Government. The Conservatives do not like to talk about the past, because when we look at how they behaved in the past it gives us a good idea as to how they will behave in the future.
	In today's debate I have identified only one Conservative alternative proposal to our policies: public sector cuts. That has serious implications. Would such cuts mean that we would go back to having fewer doctors, nurses and schoolteachers? Would public sector pension funds come under attack? The throwaway line on those cuts in the shadow Chancellor's speech today gave a lot away, although he was not spelling it out. However, if the Conservatives want to be an alternative Government, they need to spell this out to the British people now; they cannot hide from that. All the shadow Chancellor did today was quote Labour MPs and attack the Chancellor or the Prime Minister. That was a smokescreen put up to hide the fact that his party's proposals would represent a return to the past in the form of a modern-day version of Thatcherite economics.
	I want to discuss some matters of local concern for me and for my Coventry constituents, in particular the recent announcement by Ericsson that 700 jobs will go. A couple of years ago there was a similarly arbitrary proposal from Peugeot. It is clear from talking to the labour force that they feel that they do not have as much protection as labour forces in Europe. We could refer back to more of the history, such as what happened at Rover. The Government must seriously think about giving people's jobs in this country more protection. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) would confirm, the company in question told us in a telephone conversation that it would not go back on its decision, but that it would start to consult. In such circumstances, all that happens in a "consultation" is that company representatives announce, "We're now going to tell you that your jobs are going."
	The other important factor in the Ericsson situation is that we are short of technicians in this country, yet most of the jobs that will go will be technicians' jobs. That is another reason why the situation is so serious. That will, of course, have an effect on Coventry, but there is another issue that we in Coventry want to talk about in connection with investing in skills in the area and the wider west midlands region. We know that Warwick university is going to make cuts, yet we are always saying we want more skills. There is also a big debate going on about student tuition fees. If we are not very careful, that could become a form of student rationing. More importantly, however, jobs may be going at this university. We are due to have a meeting with the vice-chancellor to discuss that.
	If the Government truly want to help Coventry economically, they could also look at the Nuckle project. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West and I have had a number of meetings on that over the last five years. The council blames the Government for the delay, and the Government blame the council on the basis that the council has not produced a business plan. If the Government truly want to start getting the west midlands economy going-and in particular the Coventry economy-they must start to throw their weight behind that project, because it is, in a way, a west midlands project.
	I am sure many Members will know about the Ricoh arena in Coventry, which is now in many ways really a national arena. It attracts a lot of visitors, as well as a lot of bands and various groups, and it could be a major player in the Olympics. That is why the Nuckle project that I mentioned is important, because we need a new railway station in the vicinity of the arena to allow people to travel back and forth. The project could create more jobs, and I hope that the Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills will talk to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to give this a little push; as he is a west midlands MP, I would like to think that he will.
	I must pay tribute to my Front-Bench colleagues from the west midlands, because the Government have taken the area seriously. If they had not, would we have had a Select Committee and a Minister? The aim is to give a bit of impetus to the west midlands, but it is equally important that Ministers understand that unemployment in the west midlands is far too high. It is probably about 10 per cent. now -[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) seems to agree with me, and he is quite good with figures.
	The Government have to start to take a good look at what is happening now in the west midlands, particularly in manufacturing. The innovation fund could be used a little more to help companies such as Jaguar and a number of others that wish to go into green technology. That is where the fund could play a major part in creating the new industries for the west midlands, and Coventry in particular. Its universities have always played a major part in engineering projects in Coventry. If the Government can get strongly behind these areas, they will start to get the west midlands moving again and give the labour force confidence, and we will retain those skills in the west midlands. These issues are therefore vital to the west midlands.

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Lady makes my point for me; Warwick university is fourth in the country, and we do not want to lose that impetus. Surrounding the university are the business and science parks and all sorts of things. When we went down that road about 25 years ago, a previous Minister in the Thatcher Government said that the local authority had no business getting involved. Who was looking ahead to the future-was it the local authority or the Thatcher Government? Hon. Members can take their pick. I agree with the hon. Lady that unemployment in the west midlands is far too high, which is why I made some of my remarks about what we can do when we put some shoulder behind things.
	Another issue that worries people in Coventry is the amount of credit available to small businesses. Like many others who have spoken today, I think that banks have been very slow to release credit for small businesses, and when it has been made available small businesses have been made to pay a high price for it through interest charges and so on. The Government should certainly put their shoulder behind things in that area, because as we all know, and as has been said in previous debates, small businesses are the backbone of innovation and industry in this country. These are areas in which the Government have done a lot, but we have to keep the pressure on them and tell them that although they are doing a good job, they must do more.
	I hope that Ministers will take back with them some of the things that I have said today, but I wish to finish my contribution by discussing the King's Hill project. It will have major implications on the environment in the King's Hill area in Coventry, particularly in relation to the green belt. There has been a major demonstration in Coventry about the King's Hill project. It all centres around the fact that the region was asked to provide 365,000 houses. Lots of negotiations went on with local authorities-who are trying to blame the Government-but they reached a figure of 33,000 for Coventry.
	It is said that the brown belt-or brownfield site-can take only 25,000 houses, and those involved want to cross into the green belt. The green-belt area of Coventry-the King's Hill area-goes back to medieval times. There is a vacant medieval village, a monument, all sorts of wildlife and all sorts of environmental things that entice schoolchildren. In my view, it would be a desecration if 3,000 houses were allowed to be built there. The infrastructure will not take it. There was a suggestion of a new railway station that would help the infrastructure, because there would then have been transport facilities, but that has now been abandoned. The roads are congested at the moment-about a fortnight ago it took me two hours to get home from my surgery-and now they want to heap more traffic on those roads. All in all, I would say that it would be an act of environmental vandalism to allow that project to go ahead.

Alan Reid: The main theme of my speech will be a common theme today: the banks and the problems that many of their customers in small and medium-sized businesses face.
	In a short space of time, the banks seem to have gone from one extreme to the other-from excessive risk-taking to excessive caution. We all have companies in our constituencies coming to us with the same story. They have a good sound business, a good track record and plenty of orders, but when they try to raise money from the banks to see themselves through the recession they are either turned down flat or, if money is offered, it is offered at a very high interest rate with a large arrangement fee and often demands for high levels of security for any loans that are offered.
	Another common theme is complaints from small businesses that the cuts in the base rate are not passed on by the banks to individuals or to business customers. Getting lending moving again at reasonable interest rates is important, because although we are, I hope, starting to come out of the recession, there will still be difficult times ahead for businesses. For example, the Government's plans are to reverse the VAT cut shortly and many of the other schemes to help businesses will also come to an end.
	I remind the Government that when they reduced VAT last year, two sectors did not benefit from that cut because fuel duty and alcohol duty were put up to cancel it out. Both sectors are of importance in my constituency. Fuel duty increases penalise my constituency because we must, out of necessity, drive long distances. I shall return to a theme that I have raised often in Finance Bill debates and urge the Treasury yet again to consider making use of the EU derogation that allows countries to levy lower rates of fuel duty in remote rural areas. If the Treasury could take advantage of that EU derogation and levy a lower rate of fuel duty at filling stations in the remote parts of the highlands and islands, that would contribute greatly to the local economy. It is important to remember that people in the highlands and islands face higher fuel costs as well as having to travel long distances, so the price of fuel is very important.
	As far as alcohol duty is concerned, I much preferred the policy of the previous Chancellor to that of the present Chancellor. The previous Chancellor, during his long tenure in the post, had a policy of freezing the duty on spirits while allowing that on beers and wines to go up in line with inflation. The alcohol duty on spirits is far higher per unit of alcohol than that on beers and wines. Surely, if alcohol is taxed for health reasons, the only logic is that it should be taxed at the same rate per unit of alcohol. I urge the Chancellor to revert to the policy of his predecessor and freeze the duty on spirits. Whisky distilleries are major employers in my constituency, providing jobs on remote islands where other work is hard to find. I therefore hope that the Chancellor will listen to that advice.
	As I said earlier, small businesses still face a difficult time. The banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer with eye-wateringly large sums of money should have a duty to help small businesses through these difficult times. Nationally owned banks should act in the national interest, and the Chancellor is the main shareholder in several banks, having a controlling interest in some and a substantial holding in others. When the Ministers sums up the debate, I hope that he will tell the House what instructions the Government have given to the banks in which they are the main shareholder.
	I sincerely hope that those banks have not been told by the Government that their sole duty is to maximise their profits, and that they have also been given a duty to help solvent British businesses through the recession. I do not mean by that that they should encourage risky lending, but there are solvent companies with good prospects and good track records that need loans to help them through these difficult times. Banks with a substantial Government shareholding should consider the needs of the entire economy, and not just focus on maximising profits.
	I shall give an example from my constituency that involves the Bank of Scotland, which is now part of Lloyds Banking Group and is 43 per cent. owned by the Government. The bank decided recently to withdraw all but one of the business relationship managers from its branches in my constituency, even though local managers living in the remote communities know them in a way that business management teams located in Edinburgh, for example, could never match.
	One of the affected branches was on the island of Islay. The decision to remove the business manager there has caused great outrage and concern among the island's business community, which will now be served by a manager in a business team based on the mainland. I am in full agreement with the members of that community that a manager and a team based on the mainland will never understand the special circumstances of Islay's economy as well as a manager who lived there would, and I back their campaign to reinstate the post on the island.
	To the bank's credit, it has amended its plans in response to the campaign, and there will now be a dedicated team for business customers in the highlands and islands. That is a welcome step forward and an improvement on the original proposals, but I still think that the mainland-based team will not have the same knowledge of Islay's economy as a manager living there would. That is an example of how banks with the taxpayer as their main shareholder should look to support local communities. I hope that Ministers will take this issue up with the Bank of Scotland and urge it to reinstate the post.
	Another way for the Government to help both individuals and small businesses would be to establish a post bank, which would have 10,000 branches throughout the country. I was pleased with the announcement about the post bank that the Prime Minister made at the Labour party conference, but I have been disappointed with the slow progress since then.
	Post offices are still closing, and two have shut in my constituency since the end of the planned closure programme. As well as helping individuals and small businesses with their banking, a post bank would also help to rescue the rural post office network. I hope that the Minister summing up the debate will have progress to report on the post bank proposal.
	As well as supporting businesses through the recession, the Government should also be looking at investing in the infrastructure that the country needs so badly. Infrastructure investment is needed in school buildings, public transport, broadband provision, the national grid and so on. We need a mechanism for reducing the cost of capital through Government guarantees, while at the same time tapping into private savers' demands for long-term investment. That is why I support a UK national infrastructure bank, and I hope that that it is an idea that the Government will also support.
	I was very disappointed by the Supreme Court decision yesterday that the banking practice of imposing unfair overdraft charges on individuals was within the law. I was disappointed that the court sided with the banks in that judgment and I hope that the Government will soon introduce legislation to outlaw those unfair charges.
	I endorse what the Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said earlier about the need for a supermarket ombudsman. Such a post is badly needed to help small businesses and consumers, particularly in the dairy industry where there is a huge gap between the farm-gate price for milk and the price the consumer pays at the supermarket. I hope the Government will accept the Competition Commission recommendation and set up the post as soon as possible.
	I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope he will tell us what instructions the Government have given the banks in which they have a major shareholding, so that banks can help British businesses through the recession, rather than simply maximising profits.

Mark Field: One of the most depressing aspects of the Government's record over the past 12 years has been their unwillingness, bordering at times on the foolhardy, to take long-term decisions. One thinks in particular of nuclear energy or our transport infrastructure. The flagrantly tactical rather than strategic nature of the Queen's Speech represents more of the same.
	Collectively, the nation was lulled into a false sense of security by the clement economic conditions that prevailed for a decade from the mid 1990s, alongside a delusional feeling that the good times would last for ever. In that sense at least, the Government may have been in tune with public sentiment. There is an almost primeval human urge to avoid confronting the unpalatable in the hope that today's problems will simply fix themselves. "Something will turn up" is the watchword of the cheerily optimistic and the insanely reckless alike.
	One of the underlying characteristics of the deep financial and debt crisis in which we find ourselves is that continuing state of denial. Part of it is understandable. Two years of almost constant news headlines have suggested that we are living in a massive financial crisis, yet those headlines have not been matched-except for people who have already lost their jobs-by any sense of financial sacrifice among the public at large. More and more Government money is being pumped into the economy, so the sense of denial continues. Far too few of us in Parliament, across party divides, have woken up to the enormity of the debt crisis that will follow hot on the heels of the economic downturn, yet the seriousness of what will follow cannot long be denied.
	For sure, technically the worst of the economic recession may now be behind us, although it would be premature to conclude that a double-dip recession is not on the cards as the effect of the continued fiscal stimulus dies off-probably just after the general election next spring. Despite some of the glib green-shoots commentary, we should understand that the banking crisis represented nothing unusual. Indeed, it signalled the end of another in a long line of boom and bust cycles-positively commonplace in the second half of the last century-caused by speculative euphoria and an excess of credit.
	It is of course in the Labour Government's narrow interest to present the current downturn as entirely unprecedented, caused by modern financial alchemy gone wrong, failure by regulators or rank unforeseen misfortune. That is not so. It is true that the global nature of the economic crisis has made things far worse, but there are clear lessons we can learn from the past. One of the grand old names of British banking, Barings, collapsed owing £780 million only 14 years ago; today, RBS survives courtesy of a £45.5 billion bail-out. It is only the extent of the economic downturn, not its cause, that is so very different.
	The UK economic downturn began when the household debt and housing bubbles burst simultaneously. Our house prices rose 88.5 per cent. in the decade to 2007. Even in the sub-prime enhanced US that index rose by only 64 per cent. Similarly, our average household debt leapt from 105 per cent. in 1997 to 177 per cent. of disposable income a decade later. In both continental Europe and the US, the overall levels and the increases during that period were significantly lower.
	For the first decade of this Labour Administration, we seemed to be living in the very best of times. However, in our complacency we planted the seeds of catastrophe. Consumer consumption in the US and Europe was maintained by unsustainable levels of public and private debt. The dotcom revolution of almost a decade ago was hailed as a new paradigm. Almost imperceptibly, the wages of middle income earners stagnated, while consumption in a low-inflation, low-interest-rate economy remained apparently robust.
	In truth, as we have seen, the erstwhile Chancellor's new economy was sustained by an old-fashioned private debt bubble. Cheap mortgages remained eminently affordable by virtue of the deflationary effects of China and India's emergence on the global economic scene. Given the colossal sums of taxpayers' money that have been spent globally, and given that immense Government guarantees continue to underpin the financial system, it is remarkable how little agreement there is on what constitutes the point at which the banking industry can be said to be fixed. To that extent, I agree with what the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) said.
	Less still is there any emerging consensus on the ideal future landscape of the financial services world. That is no mere academic issue. The imperative to start repaying all that borrowing at the earliest opportunity cannot be overstated. However, commercial lending is unlikely to return to anything like normal until the second half of 2011, because toxic assets are being removed only gradually from bank balance streets. The credit crunch will be with all small and medium-sized businesses for some time to come. Extending quantitative easing beyond £200 billion would put our medium-term economic prospects at great risk, so when can the Treasury and the Bank of England call time on their short-term fixes? Despite all the euphoria of a narrative suggesting that recovery is perhaps within sight-the FTSE index has been back above 5,300-I fear that we are still a long way from being out of the woods.
	I have spoken before in the House about the root causes of the global imbalances brought about by the west's financial calamity. In many ways, those causes are the credit and debt bubble, along with the east's aggressive desire to build market share in global trade. China's policy of suppressing its currency to soak up the west's debt in the bond markets further helped to keep down interest rates, yet the resultant over-investment, excess capacity and vast structural debt in the west remains in place. I agree that the underlying causes of the crisis have not yet gone away.
	The biggest threat in the years ahead is that the indiscriminate pumping of money by the Bank of England into the economy will bring with it an unsustainable combination of inflation, rising unemployment, weak growth and diminished competitiveness. If we are not careful, that toxic mix will bring about stagflation-truly a back-to-the-1970s phenomenon. The very worst case scenario is that a future Government may regard a sustained dose of inflation as the quickest and most politically expedient way of helping to bring down the level of public debt.
	In truth, any UK Government who are regarded as popular in 2011 or 2012 will probably not be administering effective economic medicine. To do the right thing on tax and expenditure in the years to come will not be seen as a politically easy option. The billions being borrowed now by the Government to ease the impact of the downturn for today's electors will be repaid by future generations in the form of higher spending, higher inflation and reduced living standards, yet the true cost of all that will not become apparent in the months ahead. The Government are desperately hoping that neither the sands of time, nor the patience and good will of an increasingly alarmed gilt and bonds market, run out before they have to face the voters. That makes talk of economic recovery now very dangerous.
	Contrary to the rather fatuous claims by the Prime Minister, there is not a simple, binary choice, in which Tory cuts are set against Labour investment. There is a hard slog ahead for any Administration. The trouble is that much of the debate on banking regulation has focused on how we should have prevented the last crash. That has not been helped by a Government whose recent economic policy pronouncements are governed less by national interest and more by a scorched-earth approach, designed to limit the room for manoeuvre for years to come of any incoming Conservative Administration.
	The fact is that the stuffing has been knocked out of this Parliament-and, in truth, all parliamentarians-by the implications of the allowances scandal. Only the catharsis of a general election can end the expenses saga. Nothing would be more catastrophic for trust in our democratic institutions and processes than for that toxic controversy to be prolonged into the next Parliament. As a result of party managers' repeated abject failure to clear up a discredited system, which many of us regarded for some time as illegitimate, the matter came to a head only when the country was in deep recession. That has made the parliamentary obsession with expenses and allowances even less palatable. The public have rightly asked, "If parliamentarians have not the ability to put their own house in order on allowances and expenses, how can they be trusted to regulate and legislate for the rest of the country?"
	The political class needs to face some harsh truths. The impact of this economic downturn, to paraphrase Churchillian rhetoric, may not even be at the end of the beginning. We have been living through a phoney war, and the shock of the economic crash has been only to our senses: we are, as I said, wallowing in a lake of Government-funded cash.
	I am not sure that politics in this country has ever before experienced anything quite like the current situation. We have a discredited, exhausted Parliament that shuffles on to its day of destiny with the electorate, and it is very sad that the Queen's Speech reflects that intellectual bankruptcy and physical exhaustion. There is no flair, no vision, no passion, no conviction and no leadership-to the detriment of all whom we seek to represent. The 54th UK Parliament will not be much lamented.

Geoffrey Robinson: I apologise for not having been present for earlier parts of the debate, but I am very pleased to have been called to speak now.
	I shall discuss a particular incident that took place in recent weeks in my city, Coventry-namely, the sudden, unexpected closure of the Ericsson research facility with its 700 highly qualified scientists and engineers. I am pleased to see on the Front Bench my right hon. Friend the Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who, like me, has a west midlands seat and has witnessed, over many years, the relentless, remorseless decline in our manufacturing sector. That is a matter for many in the House, not least the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters. When he was Chancellor, he did his best in some ways to protect manufacturing and was always willing to speak up for it.
	Nevertheless, the situation has occurred year in, year out, decade in, decade out, and not just over the past 10 years. It is sobering to think that over that period we have lost a further 1 million manufacturing jobs, but this is not a question of 10 years: the situation has been going on for 50 years. Ever since the war or, at any rate, the 1970s, we have seen that remorseless decline.
	This is hardly a good thing, but one inescapable consequence of the recession from which we are now perhaps emerging, although we are a long way from returning to the growth rate that we enjoyed, is that people suddenly see how out of balance the economy had become. It looked great that the bonuses in the City could make good so much deficiency and decline elsewhere, but we should all have realised, and perhaps some did, that we were living in a fool's paradise. We now know that, if not all, then a massive chunk of those service industries have disappeared for good, and the huge bonuses that the City brought with it are not going to return. We have to face up over the next period to rebalancing the economy, in which manufacturing will inevitably have to play a major role. It is not going to be easy, however.
	From the Front Bench and elsewhere in the House, we all speak airily of how the green economy will bring the jobs of the future, through wind energy and, eventually, solar energy and wave energy, but when I look around and see the UK output and actual and prospective employment from it, I fear that it is yet another growth area on which we will all miss out. However, one area where we and the Government in particular could give a lead is clean coal technology. There, all the areas at which we, nationally, can excel come together-particularly in making different sectors work together. We have the straightforward engineering skills, and clean coal will be a massive engineering job; we have the science aspects, including chemical process engineering; and, not least, we have the physics aspects that will inevitably be involved. We do not need to pull together a committee that works out of the Department for Energy and Climate Change, even though it would be useful, and it would no doubt give a push here and there to make us go quicker. If we could pull together people in this country-inside and outside Government and in institutions-as a combined team of engineers and scientists, and set out to crack the remaining technical difficulties that stand in the way, we could at least get back into one sector.
	As things stand, we are certainly not going to get back into telecoms. The work force at Coventry-700 qualified scientists and engineers-represent the very last capability that Ericsson has in telecoms communication, in both systems and optics. No one is going to pretend that telecoms is an old-fashioned technology to which we are sentimentally attached, like motorcycles were at one time, but it is a technology of the current age.
	I am not sure whether it should concern us that we have no indigenous presence, let alone a British-owned presence, in that vast and important area, but it worries me that the Government are not sure about that. I do not think they have even thought about it, because we do not have a strategy Department-I do not want to hear about picking winners or anything like that-or a basic capacity to evaluate the relative importance of new, modern technologies, which are vital to the persistence of an industrialised state. I believe telecoms to be one such technology. That we do not have the capacity to ask, "Does it matter at all that Britain is about to lose its last capability in that area?" concerns me.
	I put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills that he should quickly convene a group not of the great and the good, but of people who know their business, and he should ask, "Does this really matter?" Those 700 people at Ericsson may get jobs in telecoms in this country in either maintenance or servicing, but not at the sharp end of research and development for the future, particularly in optics, which is the sector that seems to be going ahead very much at the moment, and in systems.
	The Government could find a way of saving some of those 700 jobs-it would not be a case of saving the whole 700 and I doubt whether more than 300 or 400 are actually involved in that key area. Let me be perfectly direct with the Minister about this. It has been put to me by people not a million miles away from the Ericsson plant that it is involved in key areas that are at the forefront of everything that the company does. The whole integrated systems work, on which Ericsson depends, in turn depends on those few key areas.
	The Minister spoke the other day about all the key funds that we have set up to enable people to move forward, which are excellent. Many of the funds are working very well, and we could use them on contractual arrangements for those key areas. Perhaps the research and development and the intellectual property rights would, initially and understandably, have to remain with Ericsson, but we should nevertheless retain the key element of that work force.
	Instead, we have done what we always do. I make no excuse for that, because like everybody else, I do it. The unions phone up and we say we will have a meeting, at which they say, "Look, you've got to get the Secretary of State." We say, "Yes, we're going to a meeting with the Secretary of State." We then go to the management, who say, "That's great. Let us know how you get on. Are you going to help us?" We have a meeting here, and the Secretary of State, who is active long before we get to him-all deference to him for that-is on the phone twice, laying the law down, saying, "This isn't good enough," and Ericsson management reply, "Too bad."
	That is what happened, and it was to a very formidable Minister in another House that I put those suggestions. Only if we can create a sanction of some kind or an incentive that a company cannot resist will anything happen. Something along the lines of my suggestions to the Minister could well amount to such a sanction or incentive.
	As the Minister knows, we are due to meet him next week- [ Interruption. ] I apologise if he did not know that. The meeting is tentative until he confirms. I may bring not only the unions, but one or two of the key technologists in the area, if they will come, who know what they could do and how the matter can be taken forward. What we do not want is to roll over once again, without knowing how critical it may be to our economy, and say, "Another 700 jobs gone. Isn't it terrible? That's 1,000,700 this year and in another five years it will be another 500,000." We simply cannot carry on like that, especially now that the recession has bitten so deep. Look at the strength of Germany, France, Italy and Japan, let alone the newly industrialised countries. We have to have a more nationally focused effort, without picking winners, and I think that Ericsson would be a good place to start.

Julia Goldsworthy: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). His contribution typified our debate. We had some good, fun, political knockabout from the Front Benches, but others have debated the much wider issues that our economy faces and the impact that the headline figures for unemployment, GDP and growth have on people in our communities. I shall focus on the human impact in my constituency of the economic difficulties that we are having, not least because the national statistics do not effectively capture some of the complexities that are experienced locally. There is a lot going on behind those large figures and my concern is that the difficult experiences of people, even if they are not unemployed, do not get picked up and are not properly addressed. Too many cases have been brought to my attention in which the rash of centralised initiatives that we have seen-in many different areas, including business support, housing and employment support-may have grabbed the headlines, but have not been so good at delivery.
	The first example is the small business loans fund. I asked the South West of England Regional Development Agency how many applications it had received since April, how many were currently under consideration and how many businesses had received funding. I was told that 280 applications had been received, which is not bad. Of those, 80 were still being processed and only nine had received funds, only three of which were in Cornwall. A 3 per cent. success rate is not good enough, especially when the Government's slogan is "Real help now." Perhaps it should be, "Real help in a bit, when we get round to processing the applications." Speed of response is as important as ensuring that the funds are appropriately directed, and it is clear the Government have failed many local businesses in my constituency that are trying hard to keep their heads above water.
	Another example is a coffee roasting company that had hoped to expand and buy some capital equipment. It applied for a grant from the business investment fund. It was turned down by the RDA because the wages paid were not high enough at £16,500 a year. In Cornwall, we rely on small businesses and incomes are low. For many people in Cornwall, that is a decent wage, but the RDA finds it difficult to respond on the small scale of support that is needed.
	The mortgage rescue scheme was yet another flagship announcement of Government support. Constituents of mine were told this time last year that they would be among the first people to benefit from the buy and rent back scheme that the Government proposed. My constituents had anticipated that when their fixed rate ended they would experience difficulties, and they did everything that they could to avoid that. They had never been in arrears and they told their mortgage company two months in advance. They were very excited by the prospect of some support that would allow them to stay in their home, even if they did not own it. They were told to stop making any contributions towards their mortgage while they were considered for the scheme, and as a result they ended up in arrears and with legal fees. In April, they were told that they were no longer eligible for the scheme, and they are now in a worse position than they would have been if they had not sought help. They are unable to remortgage because they have arrears, they have negative equity, and they are very worried that they are going to lose their house. From their point of view, the Government's intervention has made their circumstances worse, not better. I am disappointed to report that following correspondence with the Minister for Housing, they felt that his Department had failed to accept any responsibility for the role that it played in their current circumstances, which are appalling. I hope that he will consider the case again.
	I do not necessarily have a problem with the need for such initiatives, because businesses and home owners need support. Publicising those initiatives has an important impact on perception, but perception only matters if it matches up with experiences on the ground. Unfortunately, the experiences of my constituents are very different from what is highlighted in press releases when the initiatives are announced.
	In tackling the current economic situation, speed of response is vital. I am not sure that the Government have accepted that. I would cite not only the example I gave about the small business loan scheme but the support that people are provided with when they are looking for work. This week, I visited Working Links in Redruth, which I found extremely impressive in terms of the work it was doing to deliver the flexible new deal, providing people with highly individual support that was important in giving them confidence. However, I could not understand why an individual has to be out of work for a year before they can stand to benefit from such tailored, individualised support. Nor could I understand another aspect that would be simple to change and would address the fears of many of the people I spoke to during my visit. One of the clients said that they were worried about participating in the scheme because it involved signing off from jobseeker's allowance for two weeks while they did some work-based training and then signing on again, which could result in administrative delays and, in turn, in their being out of pocket. Simply suspending jobseeker's allowance instead of requiring people to come off it and then go back on it again would help to give people confidence that the scheme could help them. I hope that the Government will consider such simple measures.
	I want to draw the House's attention to one further example from my constituency that highlights the group of people I spoke about at the beginning-those who do not register on the radar in terms of unemployment numbers but are in a very difficult situation. Two of my constituents, Mrs. Blight and Mrs. Bennetts, have worked in a factory in Falmouth for 19 years; they are long-term, full-time employees. Since 6 July this year, the entire work force has been on a three-day week instead of 40 hours a week, and their incomes have nearly halved. They approached me to ask what I could do to help. This is an extract from their e-mail:
	"After making several phone calls we find we are not entitled to anything to help people in this situation. The company can continue to keep us on a 3 day week indefinitely; we cannot request redundancy because we work more than half the week, no tax credits because we do not work more than 30 hours and no job seekers allowance because we work more than 16 hours."
	They are in a Catch-22 situation. They are low-income workers-basically, on the minimum wage-who are in a stable job and suffering genuine financial hardship. Again, there is no real help now for those people.
	I ask the Minister to explain that situation. These people will not appear in unemployment statistics, but they are being hit hard by the current economic climate. They are the kind of people whose experiences need to be understood and properly addressed. Their circumstances are glaringly obvious at a local level, but they get lost as they are passed up the line to central Government, who are unable to respond on the scale that is needed, often on an individual or tailored basis. These people need a response and support that can be put in place quickly, and that is flexible and can change according to different needs on the ground. That can be done much more easily at a local level than from centrally driven Departments.
	That is why I find the Queen's Speech so disappointing. Surely now more than ever we should have had further moves on devolving powers and spending to a more local level so that local authorities and other local agencies have the power and resource at hand to provide help where and when it is needed. Instead, we have a Bill with no mention of any localist agenda whatever. My frustration is that at the very time when we needed localism to receive support and be driven forward, it has disappeared off the agenda entirely. That is a great shame and will create great difficulties for many people experiencing financial troubles.

David Jones: In the short time available to me, I should like to focus on one sector of the economy that is extremely important in both United Kingdom and Welsh terms, and that is the construction industry. It is a major driver of the British economy, employing some 2 million people in this country and accounting for some 6 per cent. of national economic output, worth more than £120 billion in 2008.
	The construction industry is very much one of small enterprises. In fact, there are approximately 1 million construction enterprises in this country, some 85 per cent. of which are sole proprietorships. The industry has been severely affected by the recession. In the 12 months to this June, some 82,000 jobs, or 3.6 per cent. of the construction work force, were lost. While output in the economy as a whole fell by 5.1 per cent. in the third quarter of 2009, output in construction fell by some 13 per cent. It is clear that the construction industry is being affected severely and disproportionately, and the industry sees very little cause for optimism that the position will improve. Last month, the Construction Products Association forecast that construction output would fall by as much as 15 per cent. this year and a further 2 per cent. next year. Indeed, it forecast that we would not arrive back at 2007 levels of output until 2021. Clearly, the construction industry is in a severely worrying condition, and urgent action is needed on the part of the Government.
	Frankly, what the industry needs more than anything else is access to cash, because banks are notorious for not lending to construction companies at all at the moment. I hear repeatedly in my constituency the complaint that it is almost impossible to start a new development, because of a lack of access to credit. The Government have put some measures in place, but frankly they are small-scale compared with the level of the problem, and they are somewhat timid. The enterprise finance guarantee scheme, for example, is worth only £1.3 billion in total, which is far too small a figure to make any significant impact on the industry as a whole. The trade credit insurance top-up scheme, according to recent surveys, has been taken up by only 1 per cent. of construction companies. Overall, measures put in place by the Government have done little or nothing to alleviate the plight of the industry. With the pre-Budget report impending, I entreat the Government to give urgent consideration to the Conservative party's proposals for a proper, large-scale, £50 billion national loan guarantee scheme. That is the type of scheme that is required to make any significant impact on the plight of the building industry.
	In north Wales, the industry is of considerable importance. Indeed, it is traditionally the most important industry in the region. In the whole of Wales, some 45,000 people are employed in construction. I therefore wish to touch on the importance of the coherent development of building regulations. It is a matter of great concern that at this difficult time for the construction industry the Welsh Assembly Government have seen fit to make an application to the UK Government for a transfer of functions order to enable them to have control of the building regulations system in Wales. That has caused immense concern in the Welsh building industry, principally because it, like the rest of the UK building industry, is now aiming to achieve the UK Government's target of zero carbon emissions by 2016, which in itself is a highly ambitious target.
	The Welsh Assembly Government, however, are seeking to bring the target forward to 2013. The response that I have had from constituents of mine engaged in construction is that, if that happens, it will have a devastating effect on the north Wales construction industry. North Wales builders will simply hit the A55 an hour earlier and start constructing in the north of England, and there will be a migration of skills out of north Wales. I entreat the Minister to confirm in his response that he will have words with the Welsh Assembly Government and put pressure on them to ensure that the new building regulations are adopted coherently and contemporaneously.

Philip Dunne: I am grateful for this opportunity to come in at the end of our response to the Gracious Speech. I would like to concentrate on two features. First, it seems incredible that the Queen's Speech was virtually devoid of any mention of the state of the public finances. I appreciate that the pre-Budget report is only two weeks away, but there was precious little mention of the finances, with the exception of the suggestion of a fiscal responsibility Bill. However, I give as little credence to that measure as do the professional commentators who have chosen to speak on the subject.
	In a press release this month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that
	"it is far from clear why investors and voters should be any more impressed by this [the Fiscal Responsibility Act] than they were by the Code for Fiscal Stability, which was enshrined in statute with much fanfare in 1998... Yet by early 2007, well before the current crisis-the Financial Times' annual survey of City and academic economists found that 'almost none use the Chancellor's fiscal rules any more as an indication of the health of the public finances.'".
	That was before the public finances got into today's dire state.
	We find ourselves in an economy in which £1 in every £4 spent by the Government is borrowed, and I suspect that we will establish in two weeks that the Government's estimates for borrowing have been massively overshot. The Government told us at the time of the Budget-hon. Members have referred to this figure-that we will be borrowing £175 billion in the current year. Last week, however, on the back of the announcement of the September monthly borrowing figures, the IFS indicated that public debt could exceed that figure by a further £42 billion this year. We could be looking, therefore, at a figure of £217 billion of public debt. The figures are almost incomprehensible and impossible for us to get our minds around, yet the Government seem to be oblivious to the fact that it is happening. All they have said is, "Well, we'll set up a law to prevent it from happening again," without introducing any credible measures for doing so.
	It is not just people on the Opposition Benches and external economists commenting on such matters in this country who are saying those things. Other significant figures around the world are concerned about that approach to the deficit. I shall give one more quote. This is someone quoted in  The Times on 18 November:
	"I think it is important though to recognise that if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the...economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession".
	That was President Obama speaking about the US economy, which has already started to emerge from recession, unlike our own.
	President Obama is right to point to those concerns. However, they are particularly pertinent in the case of our economy because we are faced with the worst underlying, structural debt of any of the major OECD economies. As my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said earlier, that is giving rise to serious questions about whether the Government can maintain our credit rating, which is so fundamental to future projections for servicing this monumental debt with which we are now saddled. Some credit rating agencies have warned that we are starting to appear on their watch lists. The Government need to be immensely careful about that.
	In the remaining minute before the winding-up speeches, I want to refer to one of the burdens that the Government are imposing on small businesses, which will be the engine of our economic recovery. It is the revaluation of business rates, which is due to come into force next April. By picking a revaluation at the peak of commercial rental valuations in April 2008, the Government, if they proceed with the revaluation-I sincerely hope that they will think again and follow the example of the Northern Ireland Executive and scrap it, as we have urged them to do-will lock businesses into historic high rating valuation methods for the next five years.
	Although there will be some winners, there will be many significant losers. What it means to people in rural areas such as the one that I represent is shown in a message that I received from the proprietor of a filling station with the only general store in my local village. He is faced with a rating bill increase from £4,650 to £26,000 a year-a 459 per cent. increase. It takes him over the threshold for transitional relief and he therefore has no prospect of any relief on that. I urge the Minister to think again carefully about introducing the rating revaluation at such a critical time for the British economy.

Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) described the fag end of a Parliament that we are undoubtedly in at the moment. As we all know, we have reached the stage whereby the Government are pointlessly going into a last six months because they cannot call an election with any confidence of winning at the time that they normally would. We therefore have to fill the time, and in this particular Parliament, that is not a pretty sight.
	The death of a Government is never a pretty sight and the Government have decided that they are near death, but they are desperately trying to find some good political lines in the Queen's Speech that might give them a last chance and hope. That is bad for a political system that is in disarray and discredited, and appallingly bad when we are in the deepest economic crisis that anyone living in this country has ever experienced and when it is urgently necessary to have some leadership and decisions. That is a sad background to the debate.
	It has happened before. We have had fag-end Parliaments and doomed Governments; I have been in them, seen them-going, going, gone-but we have never had one behave in this way. When the Wilson Government were coming to their end in 1970, the dafter members of that Government thought that Roy Jenkins should introduce a giveaway, reckless Budget to save them, but he did not. He gave an extremely responsible Budget, which won the plaudits of history if not the thanks of all his colleagues at the time. The Callaghan Government, coming to their inevitable end in 1979, continued with the public spending cuts that were necessary to get out of the last very deep fiscal crisis that we experienced, which had caused them to go to the IMF. I did not think that we had much chance of electoral success when we faced the prospect of the 1997 election, but my last Budget was responsible-there were no poisoned pills in it. Indeed, the Opposition supported and adopted my fiscal judgments. So straightforward were they that the Blair Government, keeping their promise to stick to my figures for three years, took us on to growth with low inflation and, eventually, a budget surplus, showing that it was possible for the political system to rise to great events.
	What a contrast with the current Prime Minister and Government. We have a concoction of Bills-I suspect that all the responsible Ministers hope that they will not get on to the statute book to embarrass any future Government-and an extraordinary attempt to try to find some dividing lines on which to fight the election politically. We had Tory cuts  v. Labour investment, but that has been modified. We ought to have a serious debate about the relationship between the prospects for growth and those for getting over the problem of debt. It is not a choice between going for growth and tackling the debt. Tackling the debt is a precondition of getting back to growth at any sensible or normal level. The Prime Minister's attempts to drive us apart on that are absurd.
	It has always been, I think, the holy grail of economic policy in Britain to go for growth with low inflation. Nowadays we should make that sustainable growth with low inflation, which we did for a period in the '90s and the early part of this century. Of course that remains the objective on this side; we are putting forward what we are putting forward because we realise that growth is the way back to prosperity and that growth will eventually put this country back on its feet. Our policies give a greater promise that the flickering level of growth, which the Chancellor thinks we might see at the end of this year, can within a reasonable time-after some tough and necessary measures-be turned into normal growth and get us back to a prospect where trend growth of 2.5 per cent. starts looking like the likely basis for sustainable growth again.
	We are in the longest and deepest recession we can recall. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) reminded me of its origins, which are now behind us, and many of those origins were here in this country and governed by his Government. He is quite right, however, that the hubris of bankers in the City of London rivalled that in Wall street. Our particular regulatory system, devised by the present Prime Minister, turned out to be completely and utterly useless, and this was the major cause of the depth of the recession here.
	The Chancellor tried to explain why the recession has been particularly deep here and what it was that caused it to be so bad, making us lag behind the field in getting out of recession into growth. There are some very good reasons. He gave one himself-that the financial services industry was a particularly large part of our economy-but that is only part of the story. The other feature here, as others have said, is that the housing market went through a bigger bubble here even than in places like Ireland, Spain or the United States, which also suffered from the problem. The level of household debt in proportion to gross domestic product was higher here than it was in the United States, but all that was tolerated and all the warnings were ignored by the Government.
	The level of public debt in this country is more severe than that of most other countries in the developed world because our public finances were in a mess under the previous Chancellor before the credit crunch was even thought of or had even started. It is on top of that that the vast sums of money had to be put in to rescue the banks. That is why the rest of the field is moving away from us, with everyone else moving into feeble growth. We are still behind and the debt remains one of the handicaps around our neck that makes this country move forward slower; it will make our growth more feeble and slower unless it starts to be tackled now. There is a direct link between the two.
	Other Members have talked about the problem. My hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) touched on it, and the problems of financing it were graphically described by several hon. Members. At the moment, we are financing this debt because the Governor of the Bank of England is printing money and is the principal purchaser of the debt. We are monetising the new debt, which we would never have dreamed of doing. The Governor of the Bank of England would never have dreamed of doing it either unless the crisis had been so bad. That cannot go on indefinitely.
	As was said earlier, foreigners will eventually have to finance the debt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster explained clearly, with the level of debt being run up by other developed countries, we have to persuade people to have confidence in this country to buy sterling-denominated assets and to finance our debt at an affordable price. Several Members warned about the rising level of debt interest as part of the public debt. Of course, as interest rates are brought back to a more normal level, if we are driven to higher interest rates because we have to sell our gilts and have to get somebody to accept the risk of financing our debt, we will find our economy slowed down by rising interest rates and the cost of servicing the debt will go up, perhaps leading us into a debt trap. I will not go on.
	It is against that background that we have seen the utterly comic complacency of a Prime Minister who would not accept that we were going into recession, who told us we were better prepared than any other country and who then said that talk of drastic measures boldly set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) at the Conservative party conference was somehow a threat to the country's future. All that is irresponsible in the extreme.
	I strongly suspect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, doing his best when he started, knows that perfectly well. There was a bit of a contrast between the emphasis he put in his speech and what is meant to be the main thrust of the election campaign being masterminded by my opposite number, when he has time between his other duties in another place, and that being put together skilfully by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the Prime Minister and the people who rather resent the Chancellor still being in his role. Perhaps that explains the difference, shall we say, in tone.
	The other big problem, to which I have no time to do justice, but to which Members from all parties referred, is the overwhelming one of credit, which, in the short term, has not been solved. It is perceived rightly as the biggest threat to the continued existence of some of our medium and small-sized businesses, and certainly to any prospect of growth for most of them in the near future. At the beginning of the year, the Government brought out streams of schemes and measures to tackle the credit markets. I refer Members only to that part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton in which he named some of those schemes, which turned out, in practice, to be trivial in their consequence, in contrast to the fanfare surrounding them when they were the initiative of the day.
	We put forward our broad-brush loan guarantee scheme, which would have been a bolder, simpler approach. When and if we take office, depending on the state of the credit markets at the time, some bold action to get the credit markets going and to encourage banks to take more risk than they are taking at present with small and medium-sized business, will be essential. The Government have failed.
	On the wider front, we have touched on the key subjects. When the Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills winds up, I hope that he will give some explanation of why the Government have abandoned deregulatory budgeting, which we propose, alongside sunset clauses for the regulatory bodies. In my opinion, Tony Blair was genuinely enthusiastic about deregulation when he took office, and wanted to reduce the costs and burdens for business. He had been sold on that policy. As Prime Minister, however, he had no time and was not a great man for detail, and the matter got away from him. It has totally fizzled out, and the Government have no deregulatory proposals, but we will have such proposals, because lifting the burden from business will be essential.
	Tax proposals have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. On employment and skills, we are addressing the comprehensive programme put together by David Freud and developed by all teams on the shadow Front Bench, in order to ensure that the huge problem, especially for the 1 million young people who are in a labour market that has no jobs, can be tackled effectively by the incoming Government.
	Lastly, I will touch on the one matter to which the Chancellor hardly referred, and which sums up the cynical approach of the leadership of the Labour party, and such part of the party that still follows that leadership, in presenting this Queen's Speech. I refer to the fiscal responsibility Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) and for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) were rather kind in their strictures on the matter. I think it is quite the most preposterous measure brought before the House for a very long time. A Government who have absolutely no policy proposals to control the largest deficit in the developed world, with a huge structural deficit at its heart, give us the reassuring news that if they have not halved the deficit in four years' time, somebody will be summonsed. It is not even clear who will be held responsible. Will it be whichever hapless soul is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Could it be the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I think, would be entitled to say that his predecessor, if anybody, should be the person subject to legal sanction? The Bill is a ludicrous proposition, and is designed to give reassurance where there is no substance. This Government-new Labour-came in on the basis of all style and no substance. They still have no substance, and the style has become shoddier as we near the end.
	I am a great fan of Benjamin Disraeli, and I looked up a passage that I often quote slightly inaccurately. Denouncing the dying Government of Mr. Gladstone in the early 1870s, Disraeli-he was about my age then, and sustained himself with a very large amount of liquor while making his three-hour speech in Manchester; only water is sustaining me-used a very grand phrase. He said:
	"The ministers remind me of one of those marine landscapes not very unusual on the coast of South America. You behold a range of exhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest."
	That quotation is not really suitable for today's debate, however. These Ministers could not be described as volcanoes. They were merely foothills when they started. The Queen's Speech shows that they are finished, and it is a pity that they go out on such a low note.

Patrick McFadden: Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on what, as we learned earlier, was his first winding-up speech in a debate of this kind for some 20 years. I believe that he was recently awarded the "Best Newcomer" award by  The Spectator, and I congratulate him on that as well. Perhaps the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is the arena for comeback kids. If so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is most welcome.
	Today's debate has focused on the parts of the Gracious Speech that are about recovery from the recession and establishing the foundations of future prosperity and economic growth. A number of Members have spoken, raising issues relating to Government debt, banks and access to credit for small businesses, and Government support schemes. I shall deal with those issues later, but one or two Members also raised issues specifically involving their constituencies.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) spoke with great passion about a planning application in his constituency which has been turned down. I hesitate to comment on individual planning applications, but I am sure that the attention of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has been drawn to my right hon. Friend's speech. The one thing that I will say, and I hope I am not going too far in saying it, is that when such circumstances arise-and I understand that the Secretary of State's recommendation was made on the advice of inspectors, not against it-sometimes an altered, or amended, application can present a way through the logjam. I hope that discussions will continue between my right hon. Friend, his local council and the Department.
	Let me now turn to the main issue that is before us. The way in which we secure- [Interruption.]

Patrick McFadden: Labour Members, at least, believe that how we secure future prosperity and growth is important. It matters to every family and every community in the country. People in the country have felt the pain of the downturn, and now they want to know about the economic future. They want to know how our industries are to recover, and how people are to be equipped for the jobs of tomorrow.
	My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the response that the Government had made to the crisis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) drew our attention to the enormity of the decisions that were made, particularly just over a year ago when the banks were nearing collapse. I think that we are in danger of taking that for granted. One of my hon. Friends referred to timidity and a limited response. I really do not think that the unprecedented intervention in the banking system a year ago can be characterised as a timid or limited response. The decision to intervene on such a scale to shore up the banking system was a huge decision, and whatever the consequences and the difficulties now are for businesses and home owners-and they do exist-the consequences of not taking such action and allowing the system to collapse, which was the alternative, would have been absolutely catastrophic for the people whom we represent.

Patrick McFadden: It was the companies who came together; the Government did not force that merger.
	All around the world, other Governments did things similar to what we were doing in terms of fiscal stimulus, but the Leader of the Opposition said:
	"We were against the fiscal stimulus".
	He and his shadow Chancellor argued for public spending to be cut back just when the country needed it most.
	The taxpayer has saved the financial system, and the Financial Services Bill focuses on the need for responsibility in the financial services industry in return for the commitment given by the taxpayer. The Bill will make it clear that we want a strong financial services sector, but also that it has to behave in a way that acknowledges the support given by taxpayers and the obligation to them, rather than in a way that flouts that support or acts irresponsibly with other people's money.
	Like my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has welcomed the Walker report and has asked the Financial Reporting Council to take forward the work on engagement by institutional investors. However, our response to the recession has not just been about the financial services sector; we have also looked beyond the recession to the jobs and industries of the future, to ensure that there is national capability in key areas and to equip people to do the jobs that the changes will bring.
	A number of Members, particularly those on the Labour Benches, spoke about the importance of manufacturing and the digital economy. Time after time in recent months, we have made announcements and allocated funds in these areas of future opportunity. The low-carbon industrial strategy, launched with our colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, set out support of up to £120 million for offshore wind, up to £60 million for wave and tidal power and £19 million for the nuclear supply chain. There is support, too, for aerospace, printed electronics and electric vehicle-charging infrastructure, and today my noble Friend the Secretary of State announced over £20 million to establish a national composites centre in Bristol and a competition to make sure we succeed in these technologies that are so important to our economy. None of this would have come from a Government determined to cut support in the middle of a recession.

Graham Stuart: May I take the Minister back to the issue of the Lloyds-HBOS merger? It was right to make the covert loans, but it was wrong for the Government to lean on the directors of Lloyds and encourage them to merge with the other company when they could not tell their shareholders the truth about the financial state of that other company.

Patrick McFadden: I really do not have time, and I want to make progress.
	The Tories told us that big government was the problem, and that it must be cut down to size. The nation could only wonder where the Tory axe would fall. That was true until last weekend, when suddenly, faced with the public's emerging view of this age of austerity, it dimmed from our view. It was obscured by the desperate screeching of brakes as the Leader of the Opposition made a hand-brake turn to talk about growth, after all those months of silence. That desperate change of direction did not communicate a genuine desire for growth; all the switching around has simply communicated confusion, uncertainty and risk in relation to the Conservative party's plans. That matters, because getting the judgment on this wrong could set back growth and cost the country even more in the future. Having got it wrong on the recession the Tories are now getting it wrong on the recovery. Their obsession with seeing government as the problem has hobbled them and prevented them from forming a coherent response to the crisis that we have been going through.
	Of course the country wants to reduce debt incurred as a result of the recession, and the Bill that we set out on this subject in the Queen's Speech commits us to doing so. However, we have to do so at a time and in a manner that fosters growth and supports recovery, not that threatens to kill it off before it gets off the ground. That was the precise point made this week by Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn of the International Monetary Fund, who said of the timetable for stimulus withdrawal:
	"We recommend erring on the side of caution, as exiting too early is costlier than exiting too late".
	In the same vein, the Engineering Employers Federation said this week that a squeeze on public spending should not start until there is "demonstrable evidence" that economic recovery is secure, and that premature action would risk
	"pulling the rug out from companies just as growth looks set to return".
	If the Tories' problem on fiscal policy is one of judgment, their problem on industrial policy is one of silence. Again, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe had nothing to say about future industrial opportunities for the country, nothing to say about the shift from a high-carbon economy to a low-carbon one, and nothing to say about the digital information revolution. The only two policies that I have heard from the Conservative party in two years of debating with him about this are getting rid of the regional development agencies, which are business led and are having an effect in our regions, and cutting capital allowances to companies seeking to invest for recovery.
	Can the Conservatives confirm that their policy on capital allowances would mean that a company investing £l million per year would get almost £90,000 more tax relief on that investment in the first year under the current Government system than under the plans that they want to introduce? Can they further confirm that a small firm investing £50,000 would get £9,000 more tax relief on that investment in the first year under this Government's system than under the proposals that they advocate? Theirs is not a plan to support recovery; it is a plan to withdraw tax relief from the investments necessary for a recovery.
	Apart from that, all we get is the scorecard on our initiatives. We have launched a number of schemes to get lending moving and to support manufacturing, such as the enterprise finance guarantee, which has provided £660 million to 6,500 businesses. Some 150,000 businesses have been helped by the time-to-pay tax initiative.

Graham Allen: A wise man once said that
	"there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones."
	We need to consider those words of Machiavelli extremely carefully when we are trying to reform this House. Despite the efforts of many colleagues over many years, there are always roadblocks or difficulties, sometimes at a late stage, in trying to move forward and make progress. However, with the help of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, whichever bit they sit on, I am sure that we can move forward.
	To rebuild this House, we will need more than a one-club policy. There has to be something better, particularly if that policy is merely to placate the media with the odd human sacrifice of a Member of Parliament because of expenses or something else. We must have another side-a positive side-to what we are doing in our own reform, and that is to create a Chamber that people can be proud of and an institution that acts as a national forum. Then we will start to recover people's respect for this institution instead of just piling more bodies on to the  Daily Telegrap h bonfire.
	We therefore need to support the Prime Minister, since it was he who set up the Wright Committee and wanted it to be a success. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that the Prime Minister intends to will the ends as well as the means-that he wants to make reform something that is not just rhetorical but real and practical as we come towards the end of this Parliament.

Graham Allen: I regard the Front-Bench team, certainly on the Government side of the House, and I would say in all parts of the House, as being positive in trying to move this plan forward.
	I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman as regards the Whips being this alleged dark force with their own agenda. I can tell him that I was in the Whips Office for five years, and as a Whip, one does not sneeze unless the Prime Minister thinks it appropriate. It is not accurate to say that the Whips have a separate agenda. If they organise informally for some reason, they are doing so at the behest of the Prime Minister, and that will be the test if and when the matter comes before the House-it is not that they have gone off on some sort of maverick effort. Either they have been told by the Prime Minister that he wishes the thing to happen, in which case it will, and they will serve him, or, informally, he does not wish it to happen, and that is when people say, "The Whips are doing their own thing." That is not true in this House.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend has been one of the most ardent and capable members of Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, and it is very rare that I disagree with him, but I say to him that the positions that we have all agreed in the report on the election of Select Committees and other things are merely a negotiating base. If we can get some key things in it accepted, I will be absolutely delighted. We must give Front-Bench colleagues who are in favour of them the ammunition to negotiate. No doubt they will make many compromises, but I hope that the House as whole will see the issue move forward, even though some things that my hon. Friend and I want will sadly not go through.
	We state at the beginning of the report, and it is repeated later, that the Government must get their business. Wherever one sits in this House, that has to be a truism while we have a unitary system of government in this country. That guarantee is in the report, and if it is not there strongly enough it needs to be reinforced by Front Benchers, who all aspire to hold power.
	The other side of that is that Parliament must get its scrutiny. That is why there is the leverage of people of good will throughout the House to suggest compromises if necessary and negotiate a way forward, and to make into a reality the truism from Gladstone that I have repeated often in this Chamber, that the role of this House is not to run the country but to hold to account those who do. If we can do that, we will all have done a good job here. In very difficult circumstances, we can salvage the heart and the root cause of why we have a Parliament in this country.

Graham Allen: I would certainly welcome an Opposition day initiated by any party so that we can have a proper debate, but I do not just want a debate: I want to have a clear decision. For instance, I do not care whether some of our proposals in the report on private Members' Bills live or die, but they should be brought to a decision rather than be subject to the procedural wrangling and argy-bargy that wastes everybody's time. Let us be honest about whether we want the changes to go ahead. The House is bad at confronting decisions and often finds ways to avoid doing so, but we certainly should in this case.
	A great strength of the point in our report about elected Select Committees is that for the first time, the members of a Select Committee were elected secretly by the individual parties. Its Labour members were properly, privately and secretly elected, as were the Conservative and Liberal members, and special arrangements were made for the minority parties, as they need to be. That precedent did not lead to the collapse of parliamentary civilisation as some people know it, because it was actually one of the best Committees that one could have wished to be on. The rapport, exchanges and interaction led to a really superb report, considering the time that we were given to produce it. I commend it to all hon. Members to read.
	We can take into our own hands our suggestion for all Select Committees. Provided that a basic test of democracy put in place by Mr. Speaker is passed, all parties should be able to grow up and elect their Committee members. What a wonderful thing that would be! It would also show that we can have legitimacy in this House, whether we are electing Select Committees or Deputy Speakers or doing anything else. We are capable of looking after our own affairs, behaving reasonably and responsibly and exercising judgment. We do not need a special group of people to do that for us or to select those things for us. That gives the House great strength, and with that strength will come the sense of being able to control our own agenda in tandem with the Government. For those who did not hear me the first time, I repeat that we do not wish to undermine the ability of a Government of any political colour to use the House to pass their legislation.
	Our weakness, however, has been exemplified in recent times. Although many hon. Members would like a debate on this issue, or some other issue or motion, it appears that one needs the strength of someone such as Sir Christopher Kelly for that to happen. He took umbrage at the fact that a Bill that he wanted was not in the Queen's Speech and found the next day that an announcement had been made, "Don't worry, Sir Christopher, you'll have a Bill if you really want one." It appears also that Nick Robinson can raise an eyebrow at something and there is an instant response. The best that Members of Parliament can do is to get a debate within two months. That shows the weakness of the House compared with the Government and the media, between whom, as we know, the real politics take place. Some of the modest measures in the report will help to redress the balance, so that the only directly elected element of our constitution-ourselves-can take some responsibility, have a degree of respect and participate in the exercise of proper democracy. That, too, is important.
	It is very important not that the party leaders, who came out individually and said that Parliament should be reformed, specify the detail of that reform-I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to the detail of the report, having had it for only two days-but that they respond to the concepts, of which they are all philosophically in favour, of improving how the House works. Those party leaders, including my own, need to repeat publicly, so that everyone-whether they are Back-Bench Members or in the Whips Office-is clear that they meant what they said.
	A tiny fraction-an insignificant sliver-of people in the House cynically believe that we can spend two months contemplating our navels, have an inconclusive debate followed perhaps by a motion towards the back end of the Parliament, when few people are here, and that, with a free vote, perhaps with thousands of amendments plaguing the Order Paper, the matter will dribble into the sand. I do not share for one moment that cynical view, which a tiny number of colleagues have proposed as a way to conclude this business.
	I am sure that we will hear tonight, not least from the Dispatch Box, that once the report has been digested, there will be a clear timetable backed by the three main party leaders, and that we will bring the House to a conclusion-yes or no-on a large number of the sensible and modest recommendations in the report. I hope that that day comes long enough ahead of a general election for it to make a difference and that, after the general election, regardless of who controls this place, another raft of proposals will come forward, so that the House can move into the 21st century and try to recapture some of the public esteem that it has so thoughtlessly frittered away over the past six months.

Barbara Keeley: I am pleased to respond to this Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). It is fair to say that he is one of the strongest advocates of the House reform agenda, and it is appropriate that he secured this debate, although we have also heard from other Members who are strong advocates. As the report of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons was published only two days ago, there is a limit to the detail into which I can go in my response, and I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that. He is nodding.
	As my hon. Friend said, on 10 June, the Prime Minister announced in a statement to the House his support for the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) to set up a new committee to consider reform of the procedures of the House of Commons. One of the Committee's terms of reference was to examine the processes for appointing members and Chairmen of Select Committees-the broad subject of our debate tonight.
	The House agreed to set up the Committee on 20 July, having first tabled a motion around the start of July. It was unfortunate that it took so long for the Committee to be set up. There were several objections to the original motion, so the Government listened to Members' representations and amended it, and the House was able to debate a motion that had cross-party support. However, I regret that the members and Chair of the Committee found themselves right on top of the recess when they were trying to get it started. There are some lessons to be learned about communication, and Members objected to the original motion night after night as their way of expressing an opinion. However, we got through that. The Committee reported on Tuesday, and the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House welcomed its report. I will come back to that subject.
	The Committee was given four areas to examine: the appointment of members and Chairmen of Select Committees; the appointment of Deputy Speakers; the scheduling of business in the House; and enabling the public to initiate debates and proceedings. The Procedure Committee has reported separately on the principle of electing the Deputy Speakers, so the parliamentary reform Committee did not want to duplicate that work. The Government will respond to the Procedure Committee's report in due course.
	Like the parliamentary reform Committee's report, I intend to use the gender-neutral term "Chair" in this debate to denote both the individual chairing a Committee and the office held. My personal view is that, like many of the other recommendations around at the moment, that is a practice that the House should adopt now we are in the 21st century.
	This morning my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House thanked my hon. Friend and the Committee for their work on the report. She also said that she looked forward to bringing the matter forward for debate.
	The report by the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons highlights three areas for reform, and makes many recommendations. They include reducing the size of departmental Select Committees in some cases, setting up a Back-Bench committee to schedule non-Government business, and informing the public of House business relating to their own petitions. As for quaint procedures, a series of petitions have just been presented, and I would be amazed if the public who felt so strongly about the subject of those petitions understood the wording of the way in which we handle them.
	On Select Committees, the report highlights several matters and makes many recommendations for reform. They range from reducing the size of departmental Select Committees to extending reforms to the Intelligence and Security Committee and making the process more transparent. It also suggests a review of the system after two years of a new Parliament and a review of the Public Bill Committee system to see whether the selection of membership should be subject to increased accountability.
	I shall talk first about Select Committees, the main subject of our debate. Select Committees have existed for centuries. In their earlier form, they advised, deliberated and reported. However, they were usually set up on an ad hoc basis to discuss the latest sensitive political issues, and they met informally. Throughout their existence the Select Committee system has evolved, and we should ensure that we enable them to continue evolving. That ties in with the Committee's work.
	Thirty years ago, the House of Commons established the departmental Select Committee system to scrutinise Departments. For many years it had been recommended that Select Committee Chairs should be paid, but that was not agreed by the House until 2003.
	Steps have been taken over the years to reform and strengthen the system, and the Committee's report notes those changes. Reforms have included: the creation of core objectives for Select Committees; the Liaison Committee publishing an annual report on the work of Select Committees, to which the Government respond, and the Prime Minister giving evidence to the Liaison Committee once a year. [Hon. Members: "Twice."] I misread-I meant twice a year.
	The parliamentary reform Committee's report states:
	"The Select Committees are widely respected and seen as generally functioning well. They have won more resources in recent years. Their work on pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny, examination of expenditure and pre-appointment hearings is gaining ground."
	It continues:
	"There is a strong desire to strengthen yet further these forums for cross-party work and Government scrutiny and indeed extend the way they work to other parts of parliamentary life."
	The report expresses concern about the current method of selecting Committee members and Chairs. It also details the powers of Committees, and their need for access to the agenda of the Chamber, as further areas of concern.
	The Liaison Committee's report, "The Work of the Committees in 2007-08" agreed that Select Committees play an important role, and said that they were
	"a central part of Parliament's vital scrutiny role."
	Select Committee inquiries are often topical and are increasingly becoming newsworthy. The current inquiry into "Press standards, privacy and libel" by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, and the Transport Committee's inquiry into "Priorities for investment in the railways" are just a couple of examples.
	This morning I was asked in business questions about giving more time to debate Select Committee reports. Although time is provided to debate Select Committee reports in Westminster Hall, I suggested that topical debate requests could also be made to give more time to debate them.
	Let me briefly touch on other areas raised in tonight's Adjournment debate-

Barbara Keeley: Thank you. I will certainly bear your words in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of suggestions have been made over a long period- dating back, I think, even to Lord Tyler, the then Liberal Democrat spokesman-about business committees and how their members might be selected and then go forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North touched earlier on two particular recommendations about the people serving on such committees. One recommendation is to timetable in Government business, and the other is to schedule non-Government business, including topical and general debates. As to who might want to sit on such committees and who might want to be nominated for them, it has been suggested that Back Benchers from all parties should be allowed to exercise their influence on the question of what important subjects should be brought before the House for debate.
	The latest proposals are part of a thorough and wide-ranging set of conclusions, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear me say that they need to be considered in detail, along with other recommendations in the report and other recent reports, of which a number have recommended various reforms.
	My hon. Friend talked about public engagement-although this subject may be rather beyond the scope of our debate. As I mentioned earlier, whenever we are talking about a subject-whether that be Select Committees or anything else that we discuss-I would like us to do so in language less strange to the public than our language frequently is.

Barbara Keeley: That brings me back to a point I made earlier. There are some issues that need careful consideration if we are to achieve the change suggested by the report. For instance, we need to think about what will happen if we have a substantial turnover of Members and a lot of new Members come in, which is certainly going to happen, because so many Members are not standing for re-election. In a recent debate about the nomination of members to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) made a strong appeal, saying that he had wanted to be considered for various Committees, but that as a Member from the 2005 intake, he had found it impossible to get nominated.
	Things will be difficult when the people making the decisions are themselves new, and we need to take account of that. If we changed the system, it would not be right or appropriate for new Members of the House to have to wait a long time before anyone knew them well enough to nominate them. The hon. Member for Broxbourne made that point to those on his own Front Bench, and I hope that they were listening to him.